Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

FOREIGN TRIALS (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)

Mr. Driberg: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you would be good enough to clarify a Ruling you gave last Wednesday, when you said:
The trial in another country of nationals of that country has nothing to do with us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 855.]
I ask because, as you will be aware, I attempted to put a private notice Question today about a number of Greek trade unionists who have now been sentenced to death and will probably be executed this week-end. I am well aware of the difference between Greece and, for example, Bulgaria, because of the Clause in the Treaty, but, with great respect, I think there is an analogy between Greece and Spain, about which questions have been allowed in the past year.

Mr. Speaker: Actually what I have said is the basic Rule which covers all our Questions about trials in another country. I think the hon. Member understands the position as regards Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. He mentioned the question of Spain and I think I can clarify that. Questions were allowed about Spain because the Foreign Office themselves made a statement that they would answer questions about revolutionaries in Spain up to a certain period. That has now been cancelled and, therefore, no Questions about trials in Spain would pass the Table. I suggest to the hon. Member that I am governed by the basic Rule which I stated and I think the clarification comes not from me, but from a Government Department.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of Order, it is surely not for any Government Department, the Foreign Office or any other, to say to the Table or the Chair which Questions are, or are not, to

be allowed. Is it not entirely in the discretion of the Chair, and might a Minister not be obliged to answer a Question, on a precedent, even if he did not want to do so?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot use my personal judgment in these matters, but must be governed by the basic Rule, and if I am satisfied that as far as the Foreign Office are concerned they have nothing to do with them, that is the basic Rule.

Mr. Pritt: In considering the Rules which should be applied, would it not be proper for the Chair to have regard to the known and declared facts? For example, in Greece there are American and British troops. There are many missions which really govern the country. Even the draft legislation and the Bills which come before the Greek Parliament are settled by English-speaking people in bad Greek and the Greek Parliament are not even allowed to alter the text. I think it is generally known that if it were not for the troops of the European and American nations at present occupying Greece the Government would not last a week. The Government obey the orders of those countries. In those circumstances, does not this Government entertain not only a great moral responsibility, but a great political responsibility and ought they not to have to answer for the acts of the Greek Government?

Mr. Speaker: I think political arguments might be adduced in Debate, but they cannot govern the Table.

Mr. Solley: Having regard to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) has said, surely we in this House are committed to the expenditure of sums of money in support of our troops in Greece which would include, inter alia, the Military Mission which is supposed to educate the Greek people in the art of courts martial. Have we not a say in the way in which courts martial purport to administer justice? Further, are we so bereft of powers in this House that we must stand by in silence while good comrades, trade unionists, in Greece, for whom we have a moral and political responsibility, might be executed during the week-end—men who fought on our side in the Great War? It is disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member say that the conduct of the Chair is disgraceful?

Mr. Solley: No, I withdraw. I was referring to the political set-up in Greece.

Mr. Speaker: We had better get on.

BILL PRESENTED

JUDGES PENSIONS (INDIA AND BURMA) BILL

"to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of pensions to certain persons who were serving as judges in India before the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, or as judges in Burma before the fourth day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Noel-Baker; supported by the Solicitor-General and Mr. Glenvil Hall; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, and the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-nine, and of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, and the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty, being expenses which under any of the four last-mentioned Acts are to be defrayed out of such moneys.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

11.9 a.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: Before passing this Resolution, could we have a little more information from the Financial Secretary? It will be noted in the Resolution that we are committing ourselves to finding certain sums of money under four different heads and for the continuation of four different Bills. One of them is of very considerable importance, the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, and I think that, in the circumstances, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be only too glad to tell the House what total sum he expects to have to find and how that sum is divided between these two Acts. Obviously, he cannot tell us exactly, but it would be a great help if we could know how the global sum may be divided.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Financial Memorandum which precedes the Bill, he will find the information he seeks set forth there. The Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, which it is proposed to continue, will involve, as he will see, an additional expenditure of the order of £4,000 per year. The Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, if continued by the will of the Committee, will probably cost an additional £125,000. The Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, will involve expenditure at the estimated rate of £1,500 per year. With


regard to the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, the hon. Gentleman will see that the expenditure is not certain, but it is obviously very small.

Mr. Williams: I am much obliged to the Financial Secretary.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Continuance of Acts in Schedule.)

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.11 a.m.

Sir John Mellor: May I ask for your guidance, Major Milner, because I am in a difficulty. The first two Subsections of Clause I provide that the Acts placed in Part I of the Schedule shall continue for one year, and those placed in Part II shall continue for two years. I have an Amendment on the Order Paper with regard to the last-mentioned Act in Part II—the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946. If I were not successful with that Amendment and it was not accepted by the Committee, I should desire to argue that that Act should be placed in Part I and should therefore continue for only one year instead of two. If I do not raise the point now, I feel that I might be prevented from raising it on the Schedule, and I should like to know if I shall be safe in leaving the matter until the Amendment has been disposed of.

The Chairman: The hon. Member knows from his long experience that it would be competent for him to raise the matter on the Question that the Schedule, amended or unamended, be the Schedule to the Bill. That will be his opportunity.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Am I correct in deducing that, without saying anything further at this stage, it would be quite competent to oppose Part I of the Schedule, or, if one desires to do that, is it necessary to oppose this Clause?

The Chairman: It would clearly be competent for hon. Members to vote against the Schedule as a whole. There is no Amendment down, and the question of the Schedule retaining Parts I and II does not, I think, arise.

Mr. Silverman: I confess myself at fault here. I have no complaint to make about anyone, and I simply want to have guidance in curing my own default. I did desire to move an Amendment to Part I of the Schedule to omit one of the Acts therein mentioned. I could do that by means of a manuscript Amendment, if that were acceptable. I would like to know whether I should be compelled to oppose either this Clause or Part I of the Schedule in order to make my point?

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member's real question is whether he should oppose this Clause, and that is entirely for him. I should have thought that it was sufficient to argue his point on the Schedule, but, if he has a manuscript Amendment, though I cannot make any promise, I will have a look at it.

Mr. Charles Williams: May I ask for some explanation of Clause I (3)?: It states:
Any unrepealed enactments which are temporary in their duration shall, in so far as they amend or affect any enactment continued by the foregoing provisions of this Act, be continued in like manner as that enactment whether they are mentioned in the Schedule to this Act or not.
I think that, for the purposes of clarity, it would be a very good thing if we could know precisely how many Acts will come in under this Subsection, because it would seem to me that there might be a considerable number. I think the Committee would be quite justified in opposing this Subsection unless they knew approximately to what number of Acts it is likely to refer. I feel sure that the Government would be glad to give us this information. Although it might be mentioned elsewhere, there is the advantage that, while discussing this matter now, we could get the information in a condensed form rather than have to look up innumerable Acts.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): As the hon. Gentleman very well knows, this is a Clause in common form. It is a saving Clause, but I cannot give him, nor would he


expect me to, a list of possible unrepealed enactments which should be included here. This is simply a device practised by draftsmen and accepted by Governments all down the years to provide that, if anything has been overlooked, the omission could be rectified.

Mr. Williams: That is exactly the point. I know it is common form, and that is obvious. It is just as well to know, in the circumstances, if the Government have anything in their minds that might be caught up in this manner. Anyone knowing the Government's mind might think that there are several things which they have overlooked.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Short title and application to Northern Ireland.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

11.15 a.m.

Mr. John Beattie: I should like to ask for an explanation how Clause 2 applies to Northern Ireland, and what is the Act which the Government of Northern Ireland have not passed but which this Clause seeks to continue. What is the power of this Government in Northern Ireland which is not subject to ratification by the Government of Northern Ireland? There are a number of very bad laws giving powers to this House in Northern Ireland, and I should like to know if these bad laws are to be continued indefinitely. There are some good laws, but there are some very bad ones, and I should like the right hon. Gentleman to inform the House why he seeks power in this Clause to continue laws of which I am not aware, and the continuance of which, if I was aware of them, I should oppose. I might endanger some of the good laws which operate from this House, but, for the purpose of clarification for myself, as I am the only Irish Member now present, I ask the Government for an explanation.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We are dealing in this Clause with enactments or part of enactments set forth in the Schedule, and some of them apply to Northern Ireland and some quite clearly do not. For instance, the Rent of Furnished Houses

Control (Scotland) Act does not apply to Northern Ireland nor to England, nor does the Education (Exemptions) (Scotland) Act. Clause 2 simply continues certain legislation, and where an Act does not apply to Northern Ireland it shall not apply in the future.

Mr. Beattie: The right hon. Gentleman's explanation has not clarified the position for me. He has wonderful ways of going forward and going backward. If these laws to which he refers do not apply to Northern Ireland why bring them in here when we have a Government of Ireland Act, 1920? Under it we have the same powers to create and operate laws as has this Government. What I wanted from the right hon. Gentleman were details of the Acts which this Bill applies to Northern Ireland and which we in Northern Ireland cannot make for ourselves. What laws are operating in Northern Ireland which we in Northern Ireland have not the power to operate through the medium of the Government of Northern Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman has not divulged this information. I agree there is the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act. Many times we have suffered by that Act and still hon. Members of this Parliament call us friends. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to clarify the position along the lines I have suggested.

Mr. C. Williams: At this stage someone ought to get up and point out that there are a considerable number of Acts which apply to the whole of the United Kingdom—to Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and even England, and that most of those laws are very good. What should be taken notice of this morning is that the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. J. Beattie) made a speech which for a great many reasons was one of the best advertisements we have ever had of the great value and virtue of the Government of Northern Ireland. I am glad to see that he thinks the Government of Northern Ireland is absolutely first class.

Mr. Beattie: The hon. Member wants to ask the Government of Northern Ireland what they think of me.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE

The Chairman: I propose to accept the manuscript Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), in page 3, to leave out lines 12 to 15.

Mr. S. Silverman: I beg to move in page 3, to leave out lines 12 to 15.
I am very much obliged to you, Major Milner, and the Committee for allowing me to move this Amendment practically without notice and at a very late stage. I do so in order to call attention to a situation of which I think neither the Committee nor the country is fully seized. I do not think any one appreciates how absolute and uncontrolled the powers of the Home Secretary are under the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919. There is no parallel to it so far as I know in any country in the world outside the totalitarian and police States. It means absolute power—I will not say over life and death, but it is only just short of that—over liberty and movement without any appeal, inquiry or third party judgment of any kind or any communication to the person concerned of what is alleged against him. They do not do these things in any other democratic country.
In the United States all these powers are exercised by the appropriate Minister subject to an open trial. The person concerned is given a copy of what charges are made and he is entitled to go before the tribunal and be represented. He is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses, to call evidence himself, and only if the decision of third party judicial authority, obtained in that way and in the full light of publicity, is against him, can he be detained or imprisoned or deported. Here all is done in secret. I know there is a technical reply, that, of course, the Minister is responsible for the exercise of these powers as for the exercise of any other powers to Parliament, and in that way it will be contended that there is a constitutional control over his actions. That is quite illusory. There is no publication of any of the cases or any of the decisions or reasons.
The House is not aware of what the Home Secretary does. It has no opportunity of knowing, and, therefore, no

opportunity of criticising. It is quite idle to say that because there is in the background the ultimate responsibility of the Minister to the House of Commons there is any actual or valid check upon his action in individual cases. There is none at all. It is an absolute arbitrary, dictatorial power exercised in secret and upon evidence which is never communicated either to the public or to the persons concerned.
How do these powers arise and where does my right hon. Friend get them from? I want to say a word in a moment or two by way of illustration of the evil of this thing. First, where does my right hon. Friend get these powers in a democratic country like ours? He gets them under the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919. I have already apologised to the Committee for not coming properly prepared, but my recollection, though it may be mistaken is that that Act was intended for the most part to repeal a great part of the Aliens Act, 1914. I am not quite sure about that, but I think it was. What it did was to retain Section I of the Aliens Act of 1914. It did so expressly in order to deal with an exceptional position for a temporary period at the end of the first World War, and it has been continued by the House under this procedure of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act for one year at a time every year for nearly 30 years. That is not the kind of legislation by which people's liberty should be infringed.
If this House wishes to give the Home Secretary permanent powers of this character, then it should do so by a separate Act which sets out what his powers are and in what circumstances they should be exercised, submitted to the House and examined Clause by Clause in Committee so that the House can decide whether or not it wishes the Home Secretary to exercise unlimited authority and powers in this way. The worst possible way of giving exceptional powers of this kind on a permanent basis is to pretend to do it on a temporary basis and then automatically slip it through unheard, unknown, unseen, and unapproved year by year in the Committee Stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. It is in that way that other liberties could be filched too.
I am not suggesting for one single moment that that is what this Government wish to do. They are the most unlikely of all Governments we have ever had to act in such a way and abuse any powers of this kind. But for that very reason I suggest, too, that this Government above all other Governments should examine this procedure and should not avail themselves of powers obtained in this way. Admittedly, it may be necessary to vest exceptional powers of this kind in Ministers for temporary periods in times of exceptional difficulty. I suppose it was for that reason that in 1919 the House of Commons accepted them, but I am sure it was never intended by the House of Commons of that day that this should, by way of temporary legislation, become a permanent part of the constitutional law of this country.
11.30 a.m.
This is not, I suppose, the time to pick out individual cases and discuss them on their merits. If I mention any—certainly not by name or individual references—it is not for the purpose of deciding on the merits of each particular case, but for the purpose of considering the kind of atmosphere which these powers produce. I remember one case, in particular, in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs was very kind indeed. He looked at the circumstances of the case himself and in the end he did what I thought the justice of the case demanded, but in that case the officials of the Home Office had represented to him that a lady had come into this country by false pretences.

Mr. Osbert Peake: On a point of Order. I think it has been ruled from the Chair on previous occasions on discussion of the Schedules of this Bill that detailed administration by Ministers cannot be criticised, but the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), if I understand him aright, is going even further and is drawing a distinction between what the Minister has done in a particular case and the advice tendered to him by his permanent officials. Surely that cannot be right?

The Chairman: As the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has said. we are now dealing with legislation and not with administration.

Mr. Silverman: I thought I myself said so. I am not in the least criticising

anybody in relation to the matter I have in mind. I said that. I have already said that I think justice was ultimately done. I do not criticise the officials concerned, either, because I have no reason to suppose, and I do not suppose, that there was any conflict of opinion between the officials in the case I have mentioned and the Minister. I am sure all concurred in the result, and the result was not unreasonable. I quoted this particular example, not by way of criticising anybody at all but in order to illustrate the kind of way in which secret powers of this kind must be exercised and the harm they do. If I may continue for one more sentence on the point, I think the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) will see what I mean and will appreciate that I am not criticising either the Minister, or the officials, or the administrative action taken.
It was said in this case that a lady had obtained admission into this country by false pretences and when I asked what exactly that meant I was told it meant this: that the lady was expecting the birth of a child and, because she had not told that to the immigration officer when she landed, that was regarded as getting into the country by false pretences. All I am saying in that connection is this: if we have a procedure whereby when an alien applies for a visa and is refused, reason is given so that he can answer the charge upon which it was refused, that kind of nonsense would be impossible.

The Chairman: One of the difficulties which arises in accepting a manuscript Amendment in this case from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne is that I have not before me the text of the Aliens Act. I gather that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has not the text, either. We are, therefore, in some difficulty, but it would appear to me that he is really dealing with the administration of the Act and not with the Act itself or with the desirability or otherwise of deleting this from the Schedule.

Mr. Silverman: I must be guided by you, Major Milner, and I certainly do not want to do anything which you think is wrong, but what I am objecting to is that absolute powers are given to a Minister. The reason I am objecting is that I think absolute powers of that kind can never be exercised in such a way as to produce justice as it is produced by an


open inquiry before a tribunal, or by some other way short of arbitrary power by the Minister. It is a little difficult to see how I can illustrate my point unless I can show how this kind of dictatorial power impedes justice and even prevents justice from being done.
I concede at once that it would be quite wrong to criticise the administration. I am sure the administration is carried out with full integrity under the Act and full intelligence, and with a good deal of sympathy in many cases. It is not the Minister's administration of his powers that I am concerned to attack at the moment. It is the existence of any such powers in a State of our kind. The reason why we like our justice to be done in public is that we believe that public justice prevents anomalies whereas secret justice encourages anomalies. All I am endeavouring to do is to suggest the kind of anomaly which follows, not from the particular way in which this Act has been administered, but from the existence of this Act and the powers under this Clause.
If I may illustrate by one other example, without dealing with names at all, I would recall a case recently in which a man, an alien, had been here and had been working. He was here for many years with the permission of the Home Office; he was working for many years under a permit issued by the Minister of Labour. He voluntarily decided one day that he would go back to the country from which he came and see what conditions were like and what remained for him there. When he went back he found that the country in question was merely the graveyard of all of his friends, family and relations. He was alone in the world there, without means, without livelihood, without relatives and without friends. Consequently, he sought to return to the people with whom he had been living here and to the work which he had been doing here with the approval of all the authorities. He was refused on the grounds that once he had returned to his own country he was just like anyone else and could not be allowed into this country.
That may have been a normal decision, but I am suggesting that it is a decision which no tribunal dealing with cases in

public could ever have arrived at or in which this Committee would think justice had been done. I say that this does not arise out of any malevolence on the part of officials or Ministers, but out of the very nature of the Act under which these powers are conferred on the Minister. It is wholly wrong. Let us by all means give the Minister proper powers to control these things, but let them be exercised subject to full publicity, in the light of full publicity, and in accordance with the canons of justice which we apply to all other cases. Until we do make some change of the kind I recommend in the Amendment which you, Major Milner, have been kind enough to accept —and with which I do not propose to detain the Committee longer—I say that this will remain a grave and tyrannical blot upon the fair name of the administration of justice in this democratic country.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): This is not by any means the first time that objection has been taken to the continuance of this particular provision. My hon. Friend has put forward a perfectly sound and reasonable argument of principle, namely, if I understood it rightly, that the control of aliens—and I gather he does not deny that there has to be a control—should be exercised by the Secretary of State acting always in public, always giving his reasons, and subject to the proceedings of some kind of judicial or semi-judicial tribunal; in other words, that, generally speaking, the discretion of the Secretary of State should be taken from him or should be exercised only in the light of proceedings of the tribunal. That is a perfectly intelligible principle, and one with which, I should imagine, many of us feel sympathy. However, at the same time, I think experience has shown, even in wartime, when it was a very much easier thing, in a sense, to devise suitable rules—for people were prepared to accept much more stringent rules then than in peacetime—that it is extremely difficult to get any system of control by tribunals which is satisfactory.
I would put it to the Committee that the real test of whether we should alter the basis of the system of our alien control now is the test of looking to see how it has, in fact, worked, ever since it was introduced. I admit that when the


controls of the first World War were introduced by the Act of 1914, and were continued by the Act of 1919, it was undoubtedly the case that the House intended that continuation to be a temporary one; and that it has been, in fact, an annual one, subject to review every year. Nevertheless, it is not disputed that the necessity for having a control has continued. It is, perhaps, even greater now than in the past.
Then there was a great wave of persons wishing to come to this country. There have been successive waves of different kinds at different times. As we all know, there is very great pressure in this country at the present time. Therefore, in that sense, the conditions have not altered. It was put by my hon. Friend that this was a highly arbitrary system, that there was no protection for liberty. He said there was no parallel to this system in any country except totalitarian countries, and so on. I really do not think that the experience of the last 25 years bears that out. I think it is remarkable, in view of the fact that this does come up for review at least once every year on this annual Bill, and can be brought up on the Home Office Estimates, how little evidence there has ever been of improper use of this admittedly wide power.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would my hon. Friend explain to the Committee how evidence of improper use could ever be available under this system?

Mr. Younger: I can only say that I have been personally connected with this only a bare year, and that it is my experience that there is no lack of persons to champion anybody who feels he is wronged in the operation of the Aliens Order. I do not think it can fairly be said that there is any kind of Star Chamber procedure which prevents Members of this House from knowing the principles upon which the administration of this Order is carried out.

Mr. Scollan: How is it possible for any Member of this House to champion cases, as my hon. Friend suggests, if we do not know about them? The 1919 amending Act gives the Minister the power to arrest, to detain, to prevent interview, and to prevent anybody's having any contact at all with the

person detained. How can one possibly get to know about such a case?

Mr. Silverman: And power to deport.

Mr. Scollan: Yes.

Mr. Younger: Deport, yes; but I do not know where my hon. Friend gets all the rest of what he has just said. I am not aware of any such powers. It is true that there is a power of detention and of deportation, but I think, except in wartime, when it is impossible sometimes to deport a person, that the detention is of an extremely limited duration. I do not think there is any foundation for my hon. Friend's allegations.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Would my hon. Friend allow me? We are discussing this somewhat in the dark. We are discussing this somewhat unexpectedly, and there is no Memorandum, except the Financial Memorandum, to the Bill. However, would my hon. Friend tell the Committee just what powers this Clause does give?

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Younger: We are somewhat at a disadvantage in not knowing that this was to be raised in this specific way. I am afraid that I have only a note of the actual list of powers given under the Act of 1914. The original powers appear in Section 1 of the Act of 1914. They were continued by Section 1 of the Act of 1919, which I have here; but they were not actually repeated, only continued by reference. The provisions in the 1914 Act covered control of the landing and embarkation of aliens, their occupation and employment, provisions as to their registration, powers as to controlling their residence, their movements, and their deportation. I think that is an exhaustive list, but I have not the actual text of the 1914 Act with me.
As actually operated, those powers are operated through the Aliens Order of 1920, and I think the provisions of that Order bear out the scope of the powers as I have told them to the House—restrictions on landing and embarkation; inspection and detention—always the limited form of detention to which I have referred; returns of passengers; several provisions as to registration, the production of documents of identity; certain provisions regarding the possession of certain


articles; deportation; and one or two general powers to arrest without warrant. I do not think I should at this stage attempt to go into the whole of the Aliens Order, which is a matter of administration, but I think it will be found that what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Renfrew a moment ago was too sweeping. The powers of arrest and detention are only for detention for the purpose of enforcing a deportation order.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am sure my hon. Friend wants to be quite frank and candid about this. Which of the powers which my hon. Friend the Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) alleged the Secretary of States has, does the Under-Secretary of State say he has not got? He read out what he said was an exhaustive list. Except for the power of life and death I cannot think of anything missing from it. Has he power to deport anybody without reason? When he decides to deport anybody, has he power to arrest him at once if he does not deport him at once? What is the extent of the limitation of detention? It would appear that there is power to detain and to deport anybody unreasonably, without reasonable cause, and that nobody can stop it.

Mr. Younger: I said just now that I agree that there are powers of deportation. My hon. Friend was right about that, but as to the suggestion that a man could be detained, and anybody prevented from contacting him in detention, I said I know of no justification for that statement, either in the Act or in the Aliens Order.

Mr. Scollan: But my hon. Friend could not deport a man unless he had arrested and detained him.

Mr. Younger: I think I have made it quite plain. Obviously, if there is a power of deportation, and a decision is taken to deport, it must be open to the Secretary of State to hold a man for the purpose of putting him in a ship. That is the purpose for which the man can be detained. I think that the best evidence for the interpretation that has always been put upon this power lies in the fact that during the war, when it was impossible because of the Nazi oc-

cupation of Europe to deport persons whom it was desirable to deport, a special article had to be added to the Aliens Order to permit the detention of aliens under the Aliens Order for an indefinite period. That article was maintained only to meet the special circumstances of the war, and has now been cancelled. It was used only in the war. I think that that, at any rate, is some support for what I am saying.
My hon. Friend said he thought the general purpose of the 1919 Act was to abolish many of the restrictions which had existed in 1914, but its title, I am bound to say, states that it is to continue and extend the provisions of the Aliens Restriction Act. So far as the timing of the continuation is concerned, the interpretation is not limited to any special set of circumstances. The Act of 1919 removed from the earlier Act the condition that these powers should only be exercised when a state of war exists, in imminent national danger or in great emergencies. It removed this condition and said that they could be exercised at any time. It did not relate the continuance of these powers to the particular circumstances of the year 1919.
I do not want to go into the question of administration, but I am sure that the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who has held the same office as I now hold, will bear me out when I say that the administration of the powers under this Act is an extremely anxious business. No two cases are alike and it is exceedingly difficult to lay down general rules which will not give rise in individual cases to hardship. One is constantly searching one's conscience whether, by taking a particular decision, one would be giving rise to an anomaly which would cause difficulty in the future. Very great trouble is taken at the Home Office by myself—as it was, I am sure, by my predecessors—and by the permanent staff in coming to a decision.
It would be difficult, I think, to devise any more explicit system which would operate more favourably for the aliens concerned. I would point out that the advantages of having decisions of this kind taken by the system of public examination before a tribunal do not lie always with the person whose case is being considered. It must be open to


the Secretary of State to remove from this country persons of bad character, and to exclude, if not to remove, persons suffering from certain kinds of infectious disease who cannot be made the subject of a specific criminal charge. In all these cases, the whole of the circumstances can be brought to light, and very often evidence is produced which could not sustain a criminal charge, but which gives ample ground for executive decision for removing the person.

Mr. S. Silverman: What is being claimed is surely a simple and reasonable thing. If we are to take action against a man on which the whole course of his future life may depend, it is unfair to do so without telling him why it is being done, what there is against him and on what evidence the charges are being made, and to give him an opportunity of rebutting them. If it is said that the hearing should not be in public the courts have power to hear cases in secret, or a special tribunal could be set up. It is surely wrong that the person should not be told on what grounds his liberty is taken away and his whole future sacrificed.

Mr. Younger: I think that the hon. Member is trying to equate proceedings that take place with regard to deportation or exclusion with a criminal trial. I think that he is overlooking the fact that there must be many cases where there is not a precise charge, as there would be in a criminal trial, backed by the sort of evidence which would be brought to sustain a criminal charge in a court of law, but where there is, nevertheless, ample ground for removing the alien. We all know that the effects in a limited class of cases may be very serious, but in the great majority of cases where exclusion or deportation is operated, it is not against persons long associated with this country who have built up their lives here. In 99 cases out of 100, it is not the sort of case where the whole life and reputation of the alien is at stake. I believe that it would be very hard indeed to devise any rules for a tribunal which could be operated in the manner which my hon. Friend suggests, and which would be satisfactory for the welfare of this country and, at the same time, be operated in a reasonable way for the reputation of the person concerned.
The way in which this has been done ever since 1919 is one possible way, and experience has shown that it has not been abused. The Act comes up for review every year at least once, and could come up at least twice, if the Opposition so chose to bring it up. I think that the complaints made against it show that it has been well operated, and that it is a very elastic system, meeting many types of circumstances, first after the first world war, then during the immediate pre-war period and now at the present when there is an entirely different situation on the continent and elsewhere. I would ask the Committee to allow us to continue these provisions for another year.

Mr. Scollan: Mr. Scollan rose——

The Chairman: I did not anticipate that we were going to have a long Debate. If hon. Members desire to continue the debate I ought to make it clear that we are discussing the continuance or otherwise of the powers set out in Section 1 (1) of the 1919 Act. It is not permissible to discuss alternatives. The simple question is whether or not these powers should be continued year by year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.

Mr. Scollan: I listened very carefully to what the Under-Secretary had to say, and it is obvious that he has failed to realise that in asking for a continuance of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, he had to give the Committee some very genuine and logical reason why it was necessary to continue it. He has not given any evidence that it will be necessary. He has simply told us how the Home Office justify the administration of it in the past in certain circumstances. He has not dealt with the principle that underlies the whole of the Amendment, which was based on certain conditions in this country, under which it was possible for people to take subversive action which rendered it necessary for someone to have particular powers to deal with that immediately. Obviously, the powers were vested in the Home Secretary. He might have told the House today if we are now in a situation in which we require a Minister of this country to have the sole power to arrest, to detain and to deport, without consulting anyone. In certain circumstances,


British subjects might be involved in a matter due to the fact that they have some connection with the victim of this sort of legislation in peace-time.
Therefore, I consider that this matter should be referred back, and the Home Secretary should bring before the House some logical reason why it is necessary to continue these powers in 1948 and 1949. If it is then still considered necessary, the matter should be brought forward and discussed definitely and not be hidden in something of this nature which deals with a whole omnibus list of laws which are expiring and which we want to have continued. Owing to the very serious nature of the power given to the Home Secretary, and the danger not only to the aliens but to British subjects associated with them in this country, I think that something should be done.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: The speech of the Under-Secretary raised a question in my mind which I should be grateful if he would answer. There are various reasons why these laws are repeated annually in this Act. The reason I have always understood why the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, is continued by this Act is that it was one of the Acts of a semi-suspensory nature, and an Act which provided the State with powers which it was considered desirable that the State should have in case of need, but it was not an Act which was considered necessary to put upon the permanent Statute Book because there was not any permanent need for these powers, and the powers were not expected to be exercised with frequency. The hon. Gentleman, in his speech, used an expression which indicated that the provisions under the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act were being used with very great frequency. He referred to the constant searching of his conscience and in other ways gave me that impression. The question which I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would answer is approximately how many cases have been dealt with under this Act in the past year.

Mr. Janner: Would the hon. Gentleman tell me why he considers that this Act should be continued at the present time, particularly in view of the fact that a different line is now being taken in connection with naturali-

sation, in which an opportunity is given to any person who is refused naturalisation or about to be refused to have the matter brought before an appeal committee? His case is considered and decided by the Committee which is set up under that Act. Such procedure seems to me to be the right lines along which questions relating to aliens should be dealt with.
12 noon.
The difficulty in regard to this Act is not the fact that powers are vested in some authority in this country to supervise aliens. The trouble is that the Act does not permit an aggrieved person to have his case tried by some means or another whereby he may present an answer to what may appear to be a proper case against him, but which in fact is an entirely wrong case. In such circumstances trouble of a serious nature might very easily arise, and innocent persons may be subjected, and I fear in many cases must have been subjected, to regulations and instructions which, had the facts been properly investigated——

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now dealing with the question of administration. I hope that hon. Members, having regard to what I have said, will confine themselves to the question of the continuance or otherwise of the powers concerned without going into the administration of those powers.

Mr. Janner: I was giving that example by way of illustrating that the Act implies that there is no right vested in anybody to have his case brought before any tribunal. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I think I am in Order in suggesting that that is a bad thing, and that it does not really enable an individual to justify any actions or any course of conduct concerning which he may be attacked, before any body which can judicially consider his particular claim.
In addition to that, the Act as it stands gives wide powers to an immigration officer. A person who for many years has conducted himself in this country in a perfectly proper manner can, on returning to this country, be arbitrarily prevented by an immigration officer from landing—I do not know if that has happened in any case—or, as in many cases which have taken place, be permitted to land


only for a temporary period. He may have been living in the country for many years, but he is permitted to land for say three months. Then considerable complication arises with the Home Office in order to release him from that particular restriction. In view of the arbitrary nature of the restrictions, and the powers given to the Home Secretary—including the power to deport without an inquiry being held; without any chance of the individual having any right to request reasons; I doubt whether on every occasion the Home Secretary is prepared to give the reasons even to a Member of Parliament if an inquiry is made—which allow a decision to be arrived at without full inquiry, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the point which has been raised, and will allow this Act to be deleted.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It would be quite irresponsible to suggest that in the present state of the world the Home Secretary should be denied drastic powers to deal with aliens, but I do not think that point of view ends the discussion on this Amendment. There was one point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), to which the Under-Secretary did not reply, and which certainly carries some weight with me. That is, whether the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is the proper vehicle for the continuance of these powers. It would be absurdly optimistic to suggest that the Home Secretary will be able to discard powers, not necessarily exactly these powers but of this nature, for many years to come, in view of the state of the world. I wonder whether it would not be more satisfactory to have the matter dealt with by permanent Statute. That would have the advantage, firstly, that this House would know what it was doing and would not merely be participating in a pretence that the matter was being dealt with on a temporary basis, when everybody knows that it will have to be dealt with on a permanent basis.
Secondly, a permanent statute would give an opportunity for the analysis of the exact powers required and their methods of administration, an analysis which you, Major Milner, have rightly ruled out of Order on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It would enable us to deal with the whole matter, and to clarify

what powers are needed, limit them to that, and have them explicitly set out in a permanent statute. I quite appreciate that that cannot be done at once, but I for one, if the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne presses his Amendment, will find myself faced with the disagreeable necessity of supporting the Government——

Mr. Hale: Will the hon. Member say why he is supporting His Majesty's Government on a matter which he agrees is a disagreeable necessity?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I believe the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) has found on occasions, it is disagreeable to support this Government. In fact, I believe that he too has found it a disagreeable thing to do, and I congratulate him upon it. On this issue, it is quite clear that the Home Secretary must have the powers. Therefore, if the hon. Member tries to deprive him of them, I shall do my best to see that he does not succeed. I hope that in the interval between now and next year the Home Office will consider whether it will not be more satisfactory to bring forward an up-to-date statute of as a permanent nature as any statute is, so that we shall not require to have this point raised year after year, and so that we may have the position brought up-to-date and put on a satisfactory legal basis. I do not think that this temporary sham annual statute is the proper way of dealing with the question.

Mr. Hale: The first point I wish to make was that this Act was first passed on 5th August, 1914, and could not have been passed on any other day. It is important that the House should have in mind that it was passed immediately after the declaration of war, when it was obviously necessary to give the Executive wide powers which they would not have been given in peace-time. When we come to the transition period after the war, when there was difficulty about the peace treaty, it was extended for 12 months. The Act of 1919 says that the powers which were specifically given only for war-time and a state of grave national emergency, could be extended for 12 months after the end of 1919, which was the period when we attempted to re-approach the tranquillity which never rapidly came.
Under the powers given by Order in Council it is possible to do almost anything with an alien. He can be prohibited from landing and from embarking. He can be deported; he can be required to reside in a certain place or he can be stopped from residing in a certain place or required to reside in the United Kingdom. He can be required to register his changes of abode, when travelling or otherwise. Officers can be appointed to carry this into effect, and impose penalties on him and on any person who aids or abets him. His employment can be directed and powers with respect to arrest, detention, search of premises and otherwise, as may be specified, are conferred under the Order, and so on. This Section of the Act gives tremendous powers to the Executive.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Society must be protected.

Mr. Hale: Yes, but we have also to protect humanity. We have to protect the elementary principle of the dignity of the human being. We have to respect the historic tradition of this country, and the right of political asylum which is part of its great tradition. We have to have regard to the fact that if a man did not have the privilege of being born in the United Kingdom—he may have been born on the high seas—he is, nevertheless, entitled to the same elementary rights that it is our desire to accord, as far as possible, to citizens of all countries.
I agree that there must be some reasonable limitation on the wholesale rights of immigration, that attention must be paid to the balance of employment, the needs of trade and the balance of population, but there is another very important point. It is all very well for the Under-Secretary who, as usual, was so able and courteous, to say that no great harm has been done. What is important is that the Statute Book of Westminster is the model Statute Book for the Commonwealth of Nations and, in many respects, the model Statute Book for the colonial territories. It is no use our saying we believe that the powers being exercised in the Colonies are fundamentally wrong if the same powers exist in the Mother country and are embodied on the Statute Book of Westminster. I urge my hon. Friend to see that this matter has the direct consideration of his Department

and of the Home Secretary and to give an undertaking that it will be considered in the light of what has been said today.

Mr. C. Williams: It is possible that I am the only Member here who can be considered to be partly responsible for the 1919 Act, as I was in the Parliament of that year. It is seldom that I agree with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but I do so today. It should be the first duty of Parliament and each of its Members to look after the interests and freedom of the private individual. Nothing is more important or vital to our work. The trouble with this Bill is that from year to year there is only one real opportunity to discuss the administrative effect of its operations, and that is on the Home Office Vote. We cannot properly discuss its administration today. That is why I object, in principle, to the Act being continued in this manner. When the Act was extended in 1919 few people imagined that it would continue for another 20 or 25, or even 30 years. The necessity for it then was the after-war period, but for year after year since then we have kept the Act in being because Governments have never been able to make up their minds precisely how they wish to deal with an alien coming into this country.
12.15 p.m.
There has been great feeling on this matter, sometimes cutting across party lines, and I have to ask myself what position I should take up in the event of a Division. I dislike the Act from the point of view of the individual's freedom, but I realise that the Government of the day must be given power to deal with aliens coming into this country, and also aliens who have been here for a very long time. In the case of those who have been here for a long time the problem is much more difficult for the Government to decide. There have been times during the last 30 years when a flood of aliens might be a bad thing—for instance, bad for trade here. I am, therefore, compelled to vote for the continuation of the Act, but I think we ought to get away from the present anomalous position.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), and no doubt we shall have some guidance from my right hon. Friend


the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who has great experience of these matters, and who, no doubt, wishes to speak. It would be wise in peace-time to adopt a systematic way of dealing with these questions, and not to leave them to be dealt with by an emergency Measure of this kind. It is better that Parliament should bring in a Bill to be put through all its various stages rather than that we should adhere to the present procedure. It might, however, be difficult to deal with the subject in the usual way, because circumstances change so very quickly. That has been the real excuse of Governments in the past for not dealing with the matter. But, in spite of that, I think it would be advisable if, in his reply on behalf of the Government, the Minister give a promise that the matter will be looked into to see if some permanent legislation more in keeping with the ideals of freedom could be introduced.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) for his useful and helpful intervention. I can assure him that I will bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend the views expressed by the Committee, but I certainly could not give any undertaking that my right hon. Friend will, on consideration, think it would be useful to introduce a permanent Measure. I believe that there is a good deal of unreality in the alleged advantages of having a permanent Measure for this particular purpose.
I will refer, first, to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), that these were powers taken for security purposes in the first world war, and that no case can be made out for saying that they are needed now. I did not go into detail, in my first intervention, about the necessity for retaining them because I thought that was obvious, and because they are not limited to security. We all know that, since 1919, there have been vast numbers of people, particularly on the Continent of Europe, homeless and anxious to come to this country. No Government could have kept in being a completely open-door policy at any time since 1919. Even though the reasons have been different, and the types of people wishing to come to this country have been different throughout that period, the problem has always been there. If it were not for

powers of this kind, it would not be merely a question of keeping out a few subversive people; it would be impossible to control immigration at all. The order made under this Act concerning immigration, the taking up of employment in this country, and so on, are necessary for control. Therefore, I do not think it necessary to amplify that point very much.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) asked how many cases of this kind were dealt with in the course of a year. I have not the figures, but if he is referring to the number of times that the powers of this Act are invoked, I should point out that, of course, they are invoked every time an immigration officer considers the case of a person coming into this country, and every time a visa is applied for by a person wishing to come here, either as a visitor or permanently. If an order were not made under this Act, there would be no control. When I spoke of searching my conscience, I was talking of the scores of cases each week from Members of Parliament alone which involve the powers under this Act. I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member the number of deportation orders made in the course of a year. The deportation procedure is frequently used in respect of persons who arrive at ports in this country with no proper documentation, stowaways, and so on. There, again, it is only by virtue of the Aliens Order that it is possible to send such people back.
With regard to the question of a permanent statute, I think it is clear that, if we had one, we should have a full Debate in Parliament on the occasion of its introduction, and, thereafter, no annual opportunity of reviewing it as under the present procedure. Could the necessary powers be put in such a statute? If they were, they, again, would not be subject to continuous review. I think that any Government which introduced such a statute would leave the powers to be put into an order under the statute, and that, therefore, there would be no different position from that under the existing Aliens Order. If the actual powers were to be set out in the Act, then I have no doubt that any Government would insist on making those powers very wide and very general, for the reason given by the hon. Member for Torquay, that


the circumstances in which those powers have to be used have varied enormously from one year to another, and from one decade to another. If they were put into the statute, alterable only by the introduction of another statute, then I have no doubt they would have to be at least as wide as the Aliens Order.
I think the iniquities of the powers set out under the present Aliens Order have been greatly exaggerated. If hon. Members studied that order carefully and considered which powers at present in it they would wish to oppose, were it proposed to introduce them into some future permanent statute, I believe they would find that they would have to reproduce practically all those powers. The only thing that would turn out to be an issue would be the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) as to whether the decision of the Secretary of State should be subject to some sort of procedure by tribunal. I believe this is essentially an executive decision which has to be taken. It is not in the nature of a criminal trial, and I think it would be found inappropriate, on full Debate, to adopt any kind of procedure by tribunal.
In conclusion, I should like to mention one small piece of evidence which has occurred to me in support of my contention that the insecurity of aliens under the present procedure is nothing like what hon. Members have suggested. In the course of my duties, I see a great number of applications for naturalisation, and I find that many of them are from people who have been in this country for 10, 15 or 20 years, and who have never before, even though eligible to apply for naturalisation, done so because they have been perfectly content and secure in carrying on their business over the years. Some of them have not even a national passport, and are Stateless persons. I think that anybody who watches the administration of this policy will be convinced that aliens in this country do not, on the whole, feel themselves subject to any of the indignities which have been referred to, or feel insecure, and that the procedure we have adopted works relatively satisfactorily.

Mr. S. Silverman: I thank the Chair for having permitted me to move this Amendment without notice, and I do

not think it would be right to ask the Committee to take a decision upon it in this way. However, before doing what I propose to do, I should like to say two things. No one supposes that, in the world as it is today, we can go back to 1914 in this or most other matters. No one supposes that we ought not to have an immigration policy, or that the Executive ought not to have powers to control the movements, admission and deportation of aliens. If I may say so with great respect to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, we all want to protect society, but we think society is better protected by good laws than by bad, and that it is better protected by freedom than by the arbitrary administration of matters which affect people's lives very deeply.
What we are saying is that no Parliament has ever said, at any time, that the powers which the Minister has under this Act ought to be given to him at all except in time of war and the aftermath of war. It is not enough to say that we need them during war. Of course we do. It is not enough to say that we need them during the aftermath of war, as in 1919 or in 1945. Once a Government have powers, they part with them with the utmost reluctance. These powers, which nobody ever intended that they should have in times of peace, were taken year after year in time of peace, from 1919 to 1939.
It is no good my hon. Friend talking about the dangers of permanent legislation. When do these powers become permanent? The Government have had them for 35 years. What we are saying is that these powers ought not to be exercised on no ascertainable principle; that their administration ought to be subject to review, and that they ought to be administered in accordance with the elementary principles of justice which, in this country at any rate, forbids playing about with people's lives on grounds that are not communicated to them, and on charges against which they cannot defend themselves.
12.30 p.m.
Therefore I do not do anything today, but I give notice that next year, unless something is done in the meantime by the Home Office by way of setting up some inquiry or introducing permanent legislation—or indicating an intention to do so


—I shall give much better notice than I have given today and invite the Committee to give a decision on the matter. I do not propose to do so today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, column 3, after "one," to insert:
except so much of that section as defines a 'built-up area' by reference to a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps not more than two hundred yards apart.
This Amendment will not arouse such deep passions or attack such fundamental principles as that which we have just been discussing; nevertheless, it is of considerable importance. Its object is to vary the provisions of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934. In that Section there is a definition of a built-up area for the purpose of securing that motor traffic shall proceed in a built-up area at not more than 30 miles per hour. The part of the definition which my Amendment seeks to cancel is in Subsection (1, a), which reads:
A built-up area shall be deemed to exist where a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart is provided thereon.
That is not the only definition of built-up area in that Act but it is the part which I seek to remove.
I hope that object is simple and clear, and that it will be acceptable to the Minister, if only for the reason that it facilitates sound planning. At the moment the position is that if for any reason lamps are provided along a road at intervals of not more than 200 yards, a 30-mile speed limit comes automatically into operation by virtue of that definition. That happens every now and again, even at the present time. A parish council may, by leave of its county council, decide to improve the amenities of a village by the installation of street lighting. If the lamps it erects are not more than 200 yards from each other the speed limit is imposed in that area. Such a case occurred quite recently on the main trunk road from London to Brighton. A parish council took that kind of action. It was not the highway authority, nor was the county council the highway authority. The Minister himself was the highway authority, because the matter concerned a

trunk road. Without consultation with the Minister or reference to him at all, the definition which I have read automatically brought into operation that speed limit, and more than eight months were required to get rid of it.
I shall be glad if the Committee would appreciate that important point. Once a speed limit has been automatically imposed, steps have to be taken which cannot, of necessity, be completed with great speed, in order to get rid of it. An inquiry has to be made. The authority which erected the street lamps has to be consulted. In point of fact, this important case on the London-Brighton main road required eight months before a derestriction order was made by the Minister. I am not pleading with the Committee for the abolition of the 30-mile speed limit but asking that this automatic restriction should not be imposed fortuitously merely because of the action of somebody who is not necessarily the highway authority.
I agree that in 1934 some way had to be devised in which a speed limit could be introduced all over the country simultaneously. The standard of a 200-yard lighting system was very good, but there is no need for that standard now. It has worked successfully, but the introduction of a speed limit by virtue of that definition is now out of date. In the near future the Minister will doubtless talk to the House about his motorways Bill. It is quite possible that there will be sections of the new roads contemplated in the Bill in which, at first experimentally and then permanently, lighting will be carried over the road. If that happens, the definition in Section 1 of the Act of 1934 will automatically restrict the speed to 30 miles an hour upon that motorway, unless the Act is amended in the way which I am now proposing.
I appreciate that the Minister may move forthwith to derestrict again, but what a burdensome, cumbersome and unnecessary procedure that will be. If he will accept my Amendment he will still be left with the power contained in the remainder of the Section to make a restriction order wherever necessary. The Amendment will result solely in the removal of the automatic restriction, which I submit is now no longer necessary or desirable and is a considerable handicap in the planning, operation and


development of the motorways and highways of this country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): I appreciate that the hon. Member has a helpful purpose in mind in moving his Amendment. The definition of built-up area has been fully considered in the past. When the Road Traffic Act of 1934 was going through this House there was considerable Debate in the Committee about what should be the proper definition of built-up area in order to arrive at a standard for the 30-mile-an-hour speed limit. There were various suggestions put forward. The right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank), who is here with us this morning as he was then, suggested that these should not be called built-up areas but lit-up areas. That did not seem to commend itself to the Committee, although I cannot see why, for it seems to me to be an excellent definition, if I may say so.

Captain Crookshank: Thank you.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry that he was not able to carry his right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) with him on that occasion. Finally, the decision was reached that the best way of determining a built-up area for this purpose should be an area in which street lamps were situated not more than 200 yards apart. There were a lot of gloomy forecasts made that the system would prove to be unworkable. Indeed, it is interesting to read the account of the Debate which took place in Committee and to see how these forecasts have been falsified by events. In point of fact, I think it is true to say that it has worked admirably. Nowadays the motorist knows that if he is in an area where there are street lamps, he is in an area where the 30 miles an hour limit is operating. Broadly speaking that is the case, and he knows where he stands.
Therefore, the first point I put to the Committee in relation to this Amendment, which would have the object of taking away that protection, is that it would make it much more difficult for the motorist to know where he stood, if, indeed, he had not the lamp posts to rely

on to tell him that he was within the 30mile-an-hour speed limit area. For that reason alone I should be sorry to see disappear this well-tried system, which has stood the test of time. I quite understand that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) would say that we could rely on Subsection 1 (b), which says that the Minister will be entitled to give a direction that a road may be deemed to be in a built-up area on certain conditions. I ask him to consider what the effect of that would be. If his Amendment were carried this morning, on 31st December next the 30-milean-hour speed limit would collapse in all areas where the Minister has not given a direction.
Certainly the Minister has given a number of directions. During the last 14 years he has given 890 directions. Approximately 1,126 miles of roads that are lit have been freed from the speed limit on the ground that they are not really built-up areas and, contrariwise, 1,733 miles of unlit roads have been made subject to the speed limit. That is, as hon. Members will appreciate, mostly in villages which have not a system of street lighting, and similar places where clearly there should be a speed limit imposed and we have been pressed by the local authority to do so. Apart from that sort of case, the effect of carrying this Amendment would be to destroy the 30-mile-anhour speed limit in all those areas in which the Minister had not made a direction.
Apart from the convenience of the motorist knowing exactly where he stands when he sees a lamp post on the side of the street, we then come to the administrative question as to how the Minister is to impose on some 45,000 miles of streets, at the moment covered by the speed limit, this requirement of observing it in future. I am told that it is legally doubtful whether the Minister could impose this by a general direction. I am not a lawyer and I hesitate to give an authoritative opinion upon it, but that is the first advice I got. When I saw the Amendment I looked into that matter to find out whether it would be possible to do it that way. I am told, and I rest on this for the moment as the best advice I have, that it would mean going through every street in which there is a speed limit at the moment if we wanted to keep


it on—and that is his purpose as much as it is mine—and making an order in respect of every street within those limits.
12.45 p.m.
I am sure the hon. Member would be the last to want to see an increase in the number of forms to be filled, an increase in the number of clerks who would have to sit in local authority offices making out these schedules, an increase in the number of officers in the Ministry of Transport who would have to consider all those applications and give directions in each case, and publish in the newspapers what they propose to do and take objections to it in order to achieve precisely the same result as we have at present. I think there is something to be said for what he has in mind, but the administrative difficulties of doing it are too great and, on the merits of the case, the removal of the protection that the motorist has at the moment of knowing where he is in relation to the 30-mile-an-hour speed limit when he is in a lit-up area, make me hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment. If not, I must ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: I appreciate what the Minister has said and I think in intention there is practically no difference between his outlook and mine. It is evident that if the advice tendered to him is correct, my Amendment goes further than I desired or intended it should. It was not my desire that we should abolish the existing system. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said in that connection. However, I believe, although he did not specifically say it, that he is also with me in the view that the time has passed when new street lighting systems should automatically necessitate the introduction of the 30-mile-an-hour speed limit. I agree that where there are lamp posts—which is not invariably the case nowadays by any means—they are a useful guide to the motorist. On the other hand, it is by no means necessary, and the introduction of the speed limit can perfectly well be brought about by Ministerial order based upon the general principle that in those other circumstances which arise, such as a main road, where it is a lit-up area, in the Minister's expression, it would be a good thing to have an order.
If the Committee will allow me, upon the understanding that the Minister and

I are in general sympathy upon the matter—and perhaps he may look at it again before another year has gone by—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Callaghan: On the whole, I think the system of defining this by reference to street lighting is administratively the best and most convenient, especially with the reserve powers that the Minister has of considering whether street lighting is the best way of doing it, and de-restricting a road if necessary or putting a restriction on if that is necessary. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the hon. Gentleman as far as that point is concerned.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to move, in page 3, line 44, col. 3, after "Act," to insert "except Section seven."
The Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, which is the Act in question, contains in Section 7 these words, which are the words with which I am concerned:
but save as aforesaid nothing in this Act shall affect any provisions of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939.
The effect of those words would be to leave the rents of certain premises controlled by the Rent Acts, and it will be my purpose to argue that the rents of those premises should no longer be frozen under the Rent Acts but should come under review by the Tribunals under the Furnished Houses Act. Premises involved are flats and divided houses in London where the rateable value is £100 or less and elsewhere where the rateable value is £75 or less and where the landlord provides certain services under the contract of tenancy. Under the Rent Act the rent is frozen in all those cases. I submit that it would be more just if it were possible for either landlords or tenants to go to the tribunals set up under the Furnished Houses Act with a view, in appropriate cases, to obtaining adjustment of rent.
I should disclose that I have some private interest in this matter. I raised it a little over a year ago, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will recollect. At that time the proposal in the Bill was to extend the


currency of the Furnished Houses Act for one year. It is now proposed to extend it for two years. On this occasion I think I have even more cogent reasons for raising this matter than I had on the last occasion. One more year and two more Sessions have passed since the Ridley Committee reported in April, 1945. The Ridley Committee stated:
Many flats comprised in blocks are let at rents which include a charge not only for the accommodation but for services provided and maintained by the landlord such as porterage, cleaning, hot water, central heating, lifts and refrigerators.
They then made this recommendation:
We agree that, if the provisions of these services in accordance with the standard agreed between the landlord and the tenant involves the landlord in a greater expenditure than he had to incur before the war, he should be entitled to an increase in the rent. The amount of the increase must obviously depend on the services provided in each individual case. This is a question eminently suitable, in our view, for decision by the Rent Tribunals, who will be able to decide on the appropriate increase on the evidence produced to them. Since the expense of providing services may have been continuing for some time at a higher level, Tribunals should arrange to give applications of this kind a high priority.
It is clear that the Committee regarded this as involving an urgent claim on the time of the Government and Parliament. That Report was presented to Parliament and was signed by the present Minister of Works and by Mr. George Buchanan, a former Minister of Pensions. Although they made certain reservations, they made none in regard to the paragraph which I have read. My proposal would, of course, involve transferring jurisdiction in these cases in regard to rent from the county courts to the tribunals. I should make it clear that security of tenure would be in no way affected and for possession the landlord would still have to go to the county court.
I am naturally reluctant to suggest a transfer of the question of rent from a superior court to an inferior court, from what is a professional court to a lay court. But, having regard to the fact that the county court judge has no discretion whatever under the Rent Acts to permit an increase in rent because of an increase of the cost of services, I would prefer on balance that it should be possible for the landlord or the tenant to go to the tribunal with a view to ob-

taining an adjustment of rent, for which tribunals have discretion under the Furnished Houses Act where it has been proved that there has been a change of circumstances or an increase in the cost of services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) and I are anxious to secure by this Amendment not that rents should be de-controlled—they would remain controlled—but that they should no longer be frozen. The difficulty has arisen in this way. The Rent Act of 1920 excepted from its scope cases where the landlord was required by his agreement to provide either attendance or furniture and the Rent Act of 1923 proceeded to narrow that exception by limiting it to cases where the value of the attendance or of the furniture represented a substantial proportion of the whole rent.
Why I feel I have a more cogent reason for presenting this Amendment now than I had a year ago, is that since October, 1947, when a similar Bill was before the Committee, the House of Lords have given a very important decision on this matter. In the case of Property Holding Company versus Mischeff on 19th December, 1947, the decision was that "attendance" must be of a personal character and that services which were supplied by the landlord but which were enjoyed by the tenant in common with all the other tenants do not constitute "attendance."
1.0 p.m.
Until the House of Lords reached that conclusion there had been a great deal of doubt about the matter. Many borderline cases were disputed in the courts. I say that in coming to that decision the House of Lords changed the situation in the sense of giving a degree of finality which was previously lacking. Not only on that, but also an another point, because the House of Lords decided in the same case how a substantial proportion of "the whole rent" was to be interpreted. They decided that where the landlord pays the rates, the rates cannot be deducted from the contractual rent in arriving at "the whole rent." Obviously that made it much more difficult for attendance or furniture to qualify as representing a substantial proportion. There again, the decision of the House of Lords has changed the situation in finally crystallising those definitions.
In the previous Debate, the Parliamentary Secretary stated:
We are agreed that this, in common with other problems, must be reconsidered at some point. The view of the Government is that we have not the time at present to bring proposals before the House.
A year has elapsed since then, and still the Government take the view that they are not able to bring proposals before the House. On the same day, the Parliamentary Secretary told the House:
I do not believe it would be right to take a special and relatively small section of property and treat it differently from the broad generality of property under the Rent Restrictions Acts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 1266-7.]
But that is what the Government have announced that they intend to do in the King's Speech, because it was there stated:
You will also be asked to pass a measure to provide for reviewing the rents of shared rooms, and of houses and flats let for the first time since the war.
The Government are proceeding to deal with this matter in a small way. If they are going to do that, why should they not go this trifle further and deal with these cases of dwellings where landlords provide the services which were the subject of such a very strong recommendation by the Ridley Committee? Therefore, I make no apologies for presenting this Amendment again this year, and I believe that, for the several reasons I have given, I have a very much stronger case than I had a year ago. The Government have changed their policy to the extent that they are starting to tackle the rent problem in a very small way, but are doing nothing whatever to remedy the injustices to which the Ridley Committee called attention. What we all wish to see is a general revision of the Rent Acts, but the Government, although they think it necessary, say they have no time. If that view has to be accepted at the present time, we might at least, if we have got to make do, try to mend what we can.

The Chairman: I assume that the hon. Member is moving his Amendment to except Section 7, and, although I do not know what view the Government may take, his remarks are clearly applicable to the point he raised earlier—that, if Section 7 is not excepted, he would wish those remarks to be considered by the Government in relation to the transfer of

this particular item, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act to Part I instead of being in Part II. I do not desire, if it can be avoided, a second Debate on the Schedule, because the arguments are precisely the same. May I take it that the hon. Member has covered that point?

Sir J. Mellor: May I say, in order to avoid further discussion on the Schedule, that, if the Government were prepared to accept this Amendment, we should be most happy that the Act should continue in operation for another two years. If they do not accept it, I feel that we ought to have another look at the Furnished Houses Act next year.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I do not understand the hon. Member's reference to two years. Perhaps he would explain it?

Sir J. Mellor: Unless I have completely misread the Bill, it places the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act in Part II and, if the hon. Gentleman will look——

Mr. Edwards: The difference is not between one and two years; the actual difference is between 31st December, 1949, and 31st March, 1950. It is a difference of three months, not double the time.

Sir J. Mellor: I apologise for that oversight, but I feel that it should come into Part I so that we can have a look at it when, next year, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill is again before the House.

The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Member.

Mr. Gammans: I should like to support the Amendment, for which my hon. Friend has set out all the arguments. I should imagine that there must be a very wide measure of agreement that the Rent Restriction Acts are fast becoming a sort of madman's paradise, so that it will soon be more appropriate to refer them, not to the Courts of Justice, but to the Commissioners in Lunacy. They started off with the idea of protecting the tenants of small houses against exorbitant rents, but they have now gone far beyond that and we find these Acts being applied to the protection of tenants of luxury flats in the West End of London.
In fact, we have the anomalous position that these Acts no longer affect the class of people for whom they were in-


tended—the poorer-paid section of the population—because, if that section of the population is living in council houses, they do not get protection under these Acts. So we have this ridiculous and anomalous situation. I am sorry that the Minister of Health is not here, because I fear that he might get himself commemorated in quarters which he would not otherwise visit and find himself immortalised by a statue to himself in Grosvenor Square, while, at the same time, people are burning his effigy on the L.C.C. estate at Dagenham.
The rents of flats and services should be adjusted to cover the increased cost of those services, and the court which decides the matter should be a tribunal set up under the Act. So far as I know, no one quarrels with that, or suggests that it is unjust or unfair. Certainly, the Ridley Committee not only considered that the present situation was unsatisfactory, but felt that something ought to be done about it. The whole position is now quite fantastic. It means that, if hot water is supplied to a tenant through pipes, it is not regarded as a service, but if a man brings it in a tin mug it is. A landlord can provide well laid-out gardens and a staff of gardeners, and this is not regarded as a service, but, if a commissionaire hands a tenant a bunch of flowers every time he goes into a block of flats, that is regarded as a service. The whole thing has become fatuous and fantastic. Why do not the Government do something about it?
We had an argument last year on the Government's proposal to deal with this matter piecemeal. They are not now prepared to deal with it wholemeal, either. They have also said they have no time, but most of these two arguments have been shot sky high by the King's Speech, because two piecemeal Acts are to be brought in to deal with tenancies and the Government are finding the time in which to do it. I suggest that the time has come when something should be done about it. I do not want to bring up individual cases of hardship, because every hon. Member knows of them. Unless we take steps to protect our existing property, we may find that the property is deteriorating faster at the one end than it can be replaced at the other. For these reasons, I hope the

Government will be prepared to give us a sympathetic reply.

Mr. J. Edwards: The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) has referred to the fact that he raised this matter about this time last year and he has been good enough to quote some of the words I used on that occasion. That means that my words on this occasion can be very few indeed. The arguments he advanced are substantially those he advanced last year, and such extra points as he put to the Committee do not alter the view I must take on this proposal. After all, the effect of what the hon. Member is proposing would, as I understand it, mean that for the very limited field of service flats and houses controlled rents should be increased or for that matter reduced, and for a limited field of furnished houses rents controlled under the Rent Act could be reduced. I am quite certain that Parliament, when it passed the Act of 1946, clearly intended that only those rents which were not already subject to control should be dealt with, and that the Act should not, therefore, apply to controlled rents.
The acceptance of this Amendment would alter the character of the Act. I have said before and I say again that at some time when pressure of Parliamentary business permits, doubtless there will be a review of the whole field. In the meantime the provision which allows only a limited section of those rents to be varied could I think hardly be justified. It would cause considerable criticism from all other sections, and I cannot see that this particular case can be advanced for special treatment on any grounds of special hardship.
It has been pointed out that the Gracious Speech contained reference to certain points on which there is to be legislation. Everyone, I think, understood that the reference in the King's Speech did not even remotely suggest the kind of comprehensive revision which would really deal with the possibility of increasing rents over the whole field. Therefore, I am sorry that nothing that the hon. Member or his hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) has stated today alters the view which I must take on behalf of the Government, that we cannot agree to a change which would be for the benefit of a relatively limited class in circumstances where we are unable


to do anything other than permit increases.

Mr. Janner: I would ask for your Ruling, Mr. Bowles, on a point raised a few minutes ago when we were on this Amendment as to whether you would permit a discussion on the Question that this be the Schedule to the Bill, because that raises further points on which I should like to make some comment. I understood from the Chairman before you took over that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) could discuss both point—sfirst the question of Section 7, with which he was specifically dealing, and then on the Schedule as a whole he could refer to other matters which would enable that provision to be dealt with on the basis of a shorter period than is intended by Part II of the Schedule. If it is for the convenience of the Committee that these matters should be dealt with at the same time, I should like to say a word or two now, but if not I will reserve what I have to say till we discuss the Motion that this be the Schedule to the Bill.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): Perhaps the hon. Member would start his remarks and we can see how he goes along. If he gets out of Order I shall stop him.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Janner: In that event I want to say that I am not in accord with the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield in his desire in any sense to limit the powers already existing, whether this be exercisable by the courts or by tribunals. He himself is asking for a piecemeal dealing with Acts which require very extensive modifications and Amendments, and which, in my view, in order to be fully effective or understood, will have to form part and parcel of a consolidating Measure. I do not think that the public as a whole—landlords or tenants but particularly tenants—have the foggiest idea of their powers under these Acts, including those parts to which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has referred. Certainly we should have a very much larger number of cases coming before the tribunals and the courts under these Acts if it were understood what powers the Acts gave the people and what they are entitled to demand.
It appears to me that any attempt at the present moment to interfere with the

Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act other than an attempt to extend its possibilities in the direction of giving much longer notice and security of tenure to the tenant ought not to be contemplated. It appears that this Act has served an extremely useful purpose, and if I were to put to the Committee some of the figures to the end of September that relate to its operation, hon. Members would agree that an Amendment in the direction that is suggested now ought not to be accepted. We should not interfere with the course of the proceedings of the tribunals except in the interest of security of tenure to which I have referred.
In my constituency, for example, the court for Leicester was set up on 16th September, 1946, and the cases referred to the tribunal by the lesse—ethat is the tenant—were 245; by the lessor only eight; and by the local authority, I am sorry to say, none at all. I think that is somewhat unfortunate, because I believe local authorities ought to exercise their rights of bringing cases before these tribunals much more frequently. Of those cases under the heading of "cases incompetent, withdrawn or not entertained" there were 83. I want to say a word about that in a moment because it is in this regard that we ought to deal with a Measure that is in the Schedule at present. The number of cases decided were 162, cases which were dismissed were only four; cases in which the rent was reduced were 139; cases in which the rent was approved were only 18; and the cases in which the rent was increased was only one. I would like to point out that the mean percentage of reduction was 27. That is, 27 per cent. of the rentals that were being charged, on the average, in the cases brought before the Leicester tribunals were reduced. It was thus shown that the necessity for the operation of this Act was very great and very urgent.
In Paddington, which is in the constituency in which I live, the court was established on 8th July, 1946. The cases referred by the lessee were 2,122, by the lessor, 189, and by the local authority, 2,267; the total cases numbered, therefore, 4,578. The cases which were incompetent, withdrawn or not entertained were 420; the cases decided, 3,215; and the cases awaiting decision, 943. The


rent was reduced in 2,037 cases, rentals were approved in 485 cases and the rent was increased in 74. The mean percentage of reductions was 27. Throughout the country, and I think this will be of considerable interest to the Committee, the total number of cases referred to tribunals by the lessees was 24,130, by the lessor, 2,334, and by the local authorities, 3,531, a total of 29,995—nearly 30,000 cases. The cases which were described as incompetent, withdrawn or not entertained, on which I would say a word or two in a moment, totalled 7,843. The cases decided were 20,387, and dismissed cases, 3064. The rent was reduced in no fewer than 14,155 cases, approved in 2,917, and increased in 251; and the mean percentage of the reductions throughout the country was 30.
That means that even if the rent had been £1 a week in each of these cases—which is a very low average: I am sure the average must be very much more than that; probably £2 or 30s. 0d.—then, on calculations which I have made, it appears that something like £218,000 was saved to the tenants in the course of one year. I think nobody could deny that a Measure which was introduced for the purpose of checking exorbitant rentals and which has achieved that figure is an extremely useful Measure, but I would go a step further than that. If I may be permitted to refer for a moment or two to what has been stated by various tribunals in respect of the number of cases which ought to have come before the tribunals, I think the Committee will be startled by the results.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: On a point of Order. Shall we be in Order, Sir, in discussing in this Debate the whole merits of this Act? We are discussing the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), not the question whether the Act should be included in Part I or Part II of the Schedule. If we are to be allowed to range over the whole Act, could we have your Ruling on the point?

The Deputy-Chairman: We do not want a discussion on the whole Act, but I think the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) is in Order so far. Although I cannot say whether or not he is in favour of the Amendment, I think

he has been in Order. It would not be in Order however to have a discussion about the whole Act.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Before you assumed the Chair, Sir, it was ruled by your predecessor, and it has been ruled in previous years in a Debate of this sort—indeed I think the point was raised by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) this morning—that it is not proper or allowable for a discussion to take place on the administration of any particular Act.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that information. I hope the hon. Member for West Leicester will take note that that is the condition.

Mr. Janner: I am obliged. I am not commenting on the administration of the Act. What I am commenting on is the necessity for the continuance of this Act without interference, in so far as it is possible for there to be no interference with it. I am showing, therefore, that this Act should be included in the Schedule because it has served a very useful purpose. I intend also to try and show by means of figures that if the Act could be exercised as fuliy as we would like, then the results would be even greater than those I have given. The Chairman of the East London Rent Tribunal referred in a statement which he made, and which was quoted in the "Leicester Mercury," to the rent tribunals, saying that in its present form the law has led to the creation of a new social group, which he called "the Order of the Trembling Tenants."

Mr. Peake: On a point of Order. It was ruled by your predecessor, Sir, I think to the knowledge of everybody at present in the Committee, that the discussion on this Amendment might cover the actual Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), which is designed to continue The Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, with the exception of a single Section—Section 7—and also that we might discuss the point whether or not the continuance of that Act should be for 12 months or for 15 months. No one has at any time suggested the deletion of this Act from the Schedule and I submit, therefore, that the remarks of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr.


Janner) who is seeking to justify the inclusion of this Act in the Schedule, are out of Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for West Leicester has the advantage of me. He heard my predecessor's Ruling; I did not. Perhaps he will abide by it.

Mr. Janner: I do not want to take advantage of the Committee in the sense of speaking at an earlier time than is permissible. I do not wish to ask you, Sir, to make a decision on this point, because that would not be fair in view of the fact that your predecessor has already made a decision. It is possible that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is right and that that is what your predecessor meant. Obviously, we are going to discuss this when we are discussing the Schedule itself. If the right hon. Gentleman feels happier that we should not discuss it at the present time, I shall be very pleased indeed to make my further points when we are discussing the Schedule as a whole. I had hoped we might save time by discussing it now, but I am quite prepared to finish at this point and to indicate that I would like to say a word or two more on the subject when the Question that this he the Schedule to the Bill comes before us.

Mr. Marples: There is one point I would like to raise with the Minister, and that is when do the Government propose to bring forward this comprehensive legislation on the Rent Restriction Acts? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health gave the same excuses last year as those given this year when he said on 31st October:
The view of the Government is that we have not the time at present to bring proposals before the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 1266.]
It seems very desirable that the Government should make some statement on their attitude to The Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act. There are a number of anomalies in the Act and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), who has moved that Section 7 be omitted is, in effect, trying to extend the scope of the rent tribunals. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) has spent a considerable time showing how efficient

the rent tribunals are in their administration. In point of fact, he went on to say that although they are very good they should not have more cases to deal with, which is quite a contradictory attitude. If the Minister will not accept this Amendment, will he give the House some indication of what line the Government propose to follow in connection with the Rent Restriction Acts in order to get rid of some of the anomalies in those Acts?

1.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Edwards: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the occasion. We are considering whether to continue certain laws, and we are in particular considering whether Section 7 of the Act we have been discussing should be continued. We are not discussing in any way any comprehensive review. Nor would it be proper for me to begin to answer the question the hon. Gentleman has put. I have claimed that the Act of 1946 has served a useful purpose and ought to be continued, and I have said that I cannot accept the hon. Baronet's view that we should give what, in fact, would be special treatment to a small group in circumstances in which, certainly at this moment of time, nothing can be done for the larger group. I cannot even begin—I should be ruled out of Order were I to try—to indicate the Government's view on the whole realm of rents restriction to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Before we leave this matter I should like to take it a little further. The Parliamentary Secretary, as I understand it, has admitted quite candidly that the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend is fully justified on merits. He has not said a single word against the merits of the Amendment, and, indeed, his whole case was that this is a meritorious Amendment, but that there are other meritorious Amendments which could be made, and that if we made this one we should cause trouble elsewhere, because the others were not made.

Mr. Edwards: I have not discussed the merits. What I have said is that I am not prepared to agree to alter the law in this one small respect. I put my case in that way, without, in fact, arguing


the merits, which I did on a previous occasion endeavour to do.

Mr. Peake: Let me say first of all that I think we are indebted to you, Sir, for the Ruling which you have given, for it is a far more convenient course to dispose of this Amendment rather than to take a discussion upon the whole merits of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, which the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), quite rightly and properly from his point of view, wishes to do.
The Parliamentary Secretary did not say anything about the reasons why the Act is to be continued for a period of 15 months rather than for the normal period of 12 months. I looked at Part II of the Schedule and imagined that this must be one of the Acts which normally expires on 31st March. When I looked up the particular Act I saw that it expires on 31st December. The normal thing to do in a case of that sort is to continue the Act for one year until 31st December following. A very exceptional course has apparently been taken in this case, which is to make this Act continue for 15 months rather than for 12. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to that point before the Amendment is disposed of, because I think the Committee ought to be informed why this exceptional course has been taken in this particular case.
On the merits of the Amendment I should like to say how extremely disappointed we are that the hon. Gentleman has not been able to meet the most convincing and unanswerable case put forward by my hon. Friends. The Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, was in terms intended to apply to premises let to tenants where services were provided. Section 2 of the Act speaks of premises leased in consideration of a rent which includes payment for the use of furniture or for services. That is to say, it was intended that the rents of premises where services were provided should be subject to review by the Tribunals established by that Act. Subsection (4) of Section 2 provides in terms that:
Where on any reference of a contract, the rent whereunder includes payment for services, the tribunal are of opinion that it

would be proper that the rent payable for the premises should include an amount in respect of increases…. in the cost of providing such services…
then the Tribunal may recommend accordingly. It was discovered only after the Act was passed that the inclusion of certain words in Section 7 prevented the rent of such premises being reviewed. The Ridley Committee went into all this and came to the conclusion, which was inescapable, that the cost of providing services for flats of this character had gone up owing to the war, but that the rents were frozen by the operation of the Rents Restriction Acts.
The injustice is manifest. It is admitted. Members of the Government who served upon the Ridley Committee recommended that that matter should be dealt with, where injustice was inflicted upon persons who found themselves in the position of having to provide more expensive services than they had contracted for, and were unable to obtain any adjustment of the rent paid by their tenants. It is extremely disappointing to us that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Ministry of Health in this matter should not have addressed himself at all to the merits of the question, because he knows that the whole of the merits of the argument is on our side, but simply says we cannot deal with this problem piecemeal. The King's Speech clearly showed that the Government do intend to deal with this problem piecemeal. In those circumstances I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would have said that the Government realise the injustice here, and were going to introduce certain legislation dealing with rents and with housing, and that they would take this matter into consideration before finally framing their legislation. I could have hoped that that might have been the attitude he would have taken. He has not taken it, and I can only once again register our extreme disappointment at the attitude the Government have taken up.

Mr. J. Edwards: I am sorry if I did not answer the one point which your predecessor in the Chair, Sir, agreed we could take in the discussion on this Amendment. I did point out that it was just three months' difference. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in saying that previously we continued this


until the end of December. The reason for the change is a quite simple one. When we were preparing this Bill on this occasion it was pointed out to us that it would be much more convenient if we could renew the Act for a period of 15 months in order to coincide with the financial provisions in the Estimates. That seemed to my Department to be a sensible course. Therefore, for the first time now, I agree, we are actually asking for this particular Act to be extended for the 15th months' period. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that, of course, will not alter the time at which the House will be asked to reconsider the matter if it is necessary, but I am advised that it would be much more convenient from the Treasury's point of view if we had this renewal for 15 months.

Mr. C. Williams: If this is to go on for 15 months, will it come up again in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill next year as usual? Then we shall have the rather curious position of our passing a law which will begin three months, apparently, after the existing period. That is an interesting point to which it is well worth while drawing attention.

Mr. Edwards: It will come up about this time next year as usual. It is quite normal form to have in the Schedule the categories of the expiring dates, at the end of December or the end of March.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Janner: I agree that what I intended to say may come more appropriately within the scope of this Motion. Therefore, I want to continue the matter to which I was referring when my right hon. Friend raised the question about the Amendment which was then being discussed. I was saying that these Acts are serving an extremely useful purpose, but not as useful a purpose as they might serve, if they were framed and completely used by the tenants who are entitled to use them, some of whom, in consequence of certain of the provisions of this particular Act, have been described as forming a new social group called "The Order of the Trembling Tenants." "The Order of the Trembling Tenants" arises from the fact that people

are frightened in many cases to approach the tribunal——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is not confining himself to the Question, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill." I hope that he will do so.

Mr. Janner: What I am endeavouring to do is to show that the Act is good in many parts and should, therefore, be continued, but that, nevertheless, it may be utilised even more extensively than it is at present, if it did not contain——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to discuss the merits and demerits of the administration of the Act, which is what he is doing.

Mr. Janner: With great respect, that is what I am intending not to do. If I am infringing, it is with very good intent, but perhaps with very bad results. I am referring to the Act and not the administration of the Act—to the Act itself, why it should remain, and why it may be held by some people that it should not remain. I am trying to show that the advantages of it remaining outweigh the disadvantages of it not remaining, and consequently it should be included in the Schedule.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Question before the Committee is, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill." If the hon. Gentleman wants the Act to be deleted, he should put down an Amendment to that effect. It is now part of the Schedule itself.

Mr. Janner: Supposing the Schedule, like the curate's egg, is good in parts, surely I am entitled to say that there are reasons why it should remain as it stands, and that the parts that are good outweigh the parts that are bad to such an extent that I have reason for asking that the Schedule should remain. I think that on that basis I am entitled to say that the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act is very good, but in view of the fact, as has been stated, that in some places as many as 40 tenants——

1.45 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to make up his mind whether he wants this Act in the Schedule


or not. He must either say which are the good parts of the Schedule which he wishes to retain or which are the bad parts which he wishes to delete and leave the Committee to judge on balance.

Mr. Janner: That is what I am trying to do. I am not referring to those parts of the Schedule which I agree are very good; I am dealing with a particular portion of the Schedule, and I am trying to show that the Schedule should not be rejected. Because Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act does not permit 40 persons instead of one to come before the courts to have their rents reduced that cannot outweigh the great advantages contained in the other Acts in the Schedule. If I am out of Order in doing that, I will seek another opportunity——

The Deputy-Chairman: I do say that it is out of Order.

Mr. C. Williams: I have no wish to discuss the Act on the question of merit or otherwise. There are a considerable number of Acts in the Schedule, and I should like to know what method the Government have for going into these Acts and deciding whether they should be there or not. Acts sometimes come out of the Schedule. There used to be a committee dealing with this point. Is there still such a committee, is it sitting now, and how often does it generally sit for the purpose of revising and cutting down this Schedule? I am wondering if the committee to which I have referred has been kept in existence since the war, and I should like to ask whoever is to reply whether the attention of this committee is being drawn to the various objections which we may have when we deal with this Bill during its Committee stage.

Mr. Fairhurst: I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the matter contained in lines 17–20 of the Schedule, which refer to the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934. I propose to make some brief comments on the proposal to continue for a further period of 15 months the provisions of that Act which are mentioned in the Schedule. At the time when the Act was passed the world was just emerging from a shocking economic crisis, and the cotton industry was in the

doldrums. At home, spinning mills were stopped, looms were idle——

The Deputy-Chairman: Hon. Members may say that they like the Schedule or that they do not because certain Measures are contained in it. The hon. Member cannot talk about the merits of any Act contained in the Schedule.

Mr. Janner: On a point of Order. May I ask, with the greatest respect, how a person can give any reason for his likes or dislikes unless he refers to a Measure in more specific terms, and explains why he likes or dislikes a particular Act which is contained in the Schedule? I quite understand the difference between what is permissible on the Motion we are discussing and what it is permissible for a Member to say in moving an Amendment or in referring to an Amendment which he believes ought to be made. But for the purpose of showing his like or dislike, surely a Member is entitled to say that the provisions of a particular Act please or displease him in consequence of what is contained in that Act or what is left out of it? I hope that we shall not be reduced, in these Debates, to the position of having to get up and say: "I like or I dislike this or that," and that is an end of the matter. That would give the Government, any Government, tremendous scope to evade points of public importance.

The Deputy-Chairman: The way to proceed is for a Member to put down an Amendment. Otherwise he is out of Order. The position is that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fairhurst) cannot go into details. He can generally, within certain degrees, discuss an Act which he wishes or does not wish to continue, but he cannot do so in too great a detail.

Mr. Fairhurst: Shall. I be in Order in asking the Minister certain questions which arise as a result of the 1934 Act?

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Member will proceed.

Mr. Fairhurst: Then I shall confine myself to asking certain questions. The first is whether any useful purpose will be served by continuing this Act? The second is, could a new order prescribing a new list be made, or will it be necessary for both sides of the cotton industry


to make a joint approach to the Government, and——

The Deputy-Chairman: The first question is in Order but the second one is not.

Mr. Fairhurst: My third question is whether the continuance of this order prevents the adoption of any new scheme of piecework prices, incentives or new wage standards?

The Deputy-Chairman: That question goes too much into detail.

Mr. Fairhurst: I must make a protest. How am I to explain to the Committee either the background of my observations and the reasons for them, and how can I persuade the Committee to think about the points which I wish to mention and discuss, if I am only allowed to say that I like or do not like the Act in question? The Act does not now serve any useful purpose, but although I can say that, and although I might be able to justify it, how can I provide that justification if I am not allowed to speak?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for Oldham, like the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner), has missed his opportunity by not putting down an Amendment. I agree that he finds himself in an unfortunate position in trying to make the speech he wishes to make within the limits of the Motion before the Committee. He cannot, on this Motion, go into the kind of detail upon which he was embarking.

Mr. Fairhurst: I have no desire to discuss the Act, but I wish to state certain points which I had in mind about the provisions of that Act.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The answer to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is that Government committees of one kind and another are constantly sitting. It is impossible for me to say whether some committee, unspecified by him other than in his general indication that it was in existence when his party was in office, is still in existence. I can tell him that all the Bills listed in the Schedule are kept under review, and when a Bill of this kind is prepared year by year, the Government Departments concerned are consulted before the Bill takes

the shape which it assumes before us today.

Mr. C. Williams: I am not satisfied with that answer. I was not referring to a committee which only sat when the party to which I have the honour to belong was in control. There was not in the ordinary sense a Government committee. It was, I think, a Select Committee which used to sit regularly. It was referred to in this House in 1930, when the previous Socialist Government were in power. At that time we received some explanation about what it was doing. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman cannot have all the details and facts before him now, but in considering this Schedule it is of vital importance that we should know if that method of limiting the length of the Schedule is still in operation. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to inquire into this matter, and either on the Third Reading, or else in some other way, perhaps by my putting a Question to him, he could tell the House whether that Select Committee still operates, and if it is now still operating as it used to do.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: It is obvious that if there was such a Select Committee it would have been reappointed when this Session began because Select Committees do not continue year after year. I think that the Committee will agree that no Select Committee is sitting on this matter at the moment. The hon. Member asked for an assurance that these matters were closely watched by the Government and Government Departments. I can give him that assurance. They are watched, and where it is possible to allow an Act to expire it is excluded from this Measure.

Mr. C. Williams: I thank the Financial Secretary for the amount of information he has given me. We all know that Government Departments review these matters from time to time, but where there is a long Schedule of this kind it is essential that we should have something more than an ordinary Government Department inquiry. There has been at least one instance in which that has led to very unsatisfactory results by Bills having been left hanging over in this way. I hope that as I have drawn attention to the matter some consideration will be given to it by the authorities in the future.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): A question has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Fairhurst) as to the Government's reasons for continuing Sections 1 and 2 of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934. It is highly necessary, in view of what is transpiring in Lancashire that the Government's reason for continuing these Sections should be made quite clear. Unless we preserve Sections 1 and 2 the machinery whereby new wages are established in Lancashire will become defunct, and the present wage system, which is frozen under an order under this Act, cannot be altered. All that Sections 1 and 2 do is to preserve the machinery whereby both sections of the industry may come to the Government and ask for a new order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment: read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL STOCK BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

2.0 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Colonial Stock Acts 1877 and 1892 give certain powers to registrars of stocks, to which those Acts apply, to make regulations governing the transfer of stocks. At the beginning of the war the Government and Other Stocks (Emergency Provisions) Act was passed, which suspended the transfer of stock by inscription, and made provision for all transfers to be by instrument in writing. The last named Act was to remain in existence until the emergency which occasioned the Act was declared to be at an end by Order in Council. The Treasury and the Bank of England have considered the matter, and have come to the conclusion that it would be a retrograde step to revert to the old method of transferring these stocks by inscription. It is a cumbersome method, and is frequently inconvenient, and this Bill seeks to make permanent the changeover to transfer by instrument in writing.
Clause 1 does what I have indicated. It will be noticed that there is a proviso which makes it essential that in each case the Dominion or Colonial legislature concerned should concur in any change that is made. Clause 2 deals with a rather different matter. It extends the Colonial Stock Acts to the stock of Governments or authorities which may be operating in more than one territory. For instance, in East Africa there is the East African High Commission, which is an inter-colonial body functioning in Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika. There, they are interested in loans to finance the East African railway system, the development of minerals and so on. This Clause extends the powers in the Colonial Stock Acts to loans raised by inter-colonial authorities of that kind.

Captain Crookshank: On behalf of the Opposition I have no objection to offer to this Bill, which seems reasonable. Clause 2 extends certain provisions to larger authorities, and to that extent is doing something towards consolidating the Empire, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so pleased and anxious to liquidate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. R. Adams.]

Orders of the Day — DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

2.4 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to this Bill shows that the Bill provides that on the expiry of the Debts Clearing Offices and Export Restrictions Act, 1934, the obligation to pay any debt to any of the clearing offices is extinguished, and that the debt will be owed to the foreign creditor concerned. But for the Bill the clearing offices would have had to continue until all the debts were paid, although the clearing arrangement which they agreed to operate had come to an end.
I do not know whether the House desires me to enter into an explanation of this Measure, which is very technical


although its object is simple. Little money is involved; the amount now outstanding is about £22,000 and I believe that that will probably be liquidated in due course. I can tell the House that there has been no loss on these clearing offices. In fact, the commission which has been laid down on each transaction has meant that a certain amount of profit has resulted to the State. The time has now come when these offices should no longer remain in being.

Captain Crookshank: I have no objection to offer to this Bill, and I am pleased to see that the amount involved is so small. I expected it to be larger. I assume that there will also be a consequential saving somewhere else as well.

Mr. Charles Williams: It is rarely that we get a Bill of this kind on a Friday, and I am glad to welcome it because it will make a small saving in the number of civil servants who have to be employed. The Financial Secretary seems to have missed a grand opportunity of showing that this Bill was the first earnest of what the Government have been promising for the past two or three years—to reduce drastically the swollen staffs of the Civil Service. However, I congratulate him and the Government on having taken this small step, although he should have taken the advantage which this House offers to show the people of the country that the Government are doing something on this occasion to reduce unnecessary staffs and accommodation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. R. Adams.]

Orders of the Day — SAVINGS BANKS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

2.8 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The object of this Bill is to improve the administrative machinery of the Trustee Savings Banks, and to extend their powers It covers a number of

matters which have been under discussion between the Treasury and the Trustee Savings Banks Association for some time. Some of the provisions in this Measure would, I think, have received legislative sanction before the war by another Government had time permitted. Many of the things suggested here are quite nonparty, and have received the willing assent of Members in all quarters of the House.
With the exception of Clause 14, which deals with Naval savings banks, the provisions of the Bill have been agreed in substance with the Trustee Savings Banks Association. There are now 86 of these banks in the United Kingdom. They are non-profit making institutions, managed by voluntary trustees of long residence, integrity and good standing. I think this is a good opportunity to pay a tribute to those trustees many of whom have, over quite a long period, done splendid work for this movement. I think, too, the House would like me, on its behalf, to pay a similar tribute to the Association itself which has done very valuable work for the community. Sir Kenneth Stewart, the Chairman of the Association, has done particularly valuable work. He has great drive, and, under his leadership, the savings banks have, in recent years, taken on a new lease of life and gone from strength to strength.
Many of these banks were founded in the early part of the last century, and have built up a very great local tradition. Others are not so old; they have come into existence since the passing of the Savings Bank Act, 1929. But, old or new, there has been, particularly in recent years, a great spirit of enterprise among them, and the expansion which has taken place, has, in my view, been very gratifying, and, indeed, remarkable. They form an integral part of the National Savings Movement, and the work which they have done in this direction has, I believe, proved invaluable in encouraging thrift, particularly among small savers.
This Government—we are not dealing here with a party matter—have done all they can to help the savings banks in the work they are doing. They have approved a programme of development in new areas, and the House will be interested to know that it is hoped to open within the next five or six years something like 150 branches a year. Last year, 60


new branches were opened, and, in the current year, it is hoped to exceed that figure. At the end of 1947, the total sum due from the National Debt Commissioners, who hold the moneys of these savings banks in a special fund, exceeded £600 million. That will give the House some idea of how much money is involved, and of what an excellent job these banks are doing.
I do not wish, at this juncture, to go through this Bill Clause by Clause. As the House will have seen, there is a number of Clauses, but, fortunately, this time, unlike some Bills which deal with financial matters, most of the Clauses are quite plain. But the most important Clause is, undoubtedly, Clause 1, and I will refer to that at some length. Clause 1 arises out of an understanding reached with the Trustee Savings Banks Association. The main object was to find a reasonable means of reducing the total remuneration paid to the banks, consistent with the Government's policy of encouraging their development and activities. As the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank) knows, the Treasury has power, under Section 2 of the Savings Banks Act, 1920, to fix the interest payable to the banks on sums invested with the National Debt Commissioners at any rate between £2 15s. per cent. and £2 17s. 6d. per cent. Since 1920, the rate has stood at £2 17s. 6d. per cent., but it has been clear for some time that the margin of⅜ per cent. between this rate and the 2½ per cent. paid to the banks' depositors, was more than was needed by the banks as a whole to meet their management expenses.
Some banks, however, were less fortunate than others; and although the margin was obviously more than justified for some banks, with others, not because they were inefficient or for any reason of that kind, but because they were frequently enterprising and launched out perhaps more than some people might have thought they were justified in doing, the amount has not proved more than sufficient, or, perhaps, in one or two cases, not even enough. After considerable discussion with the Association, an understanding was reached with the Treasury that the existing rate of interest should be reduced to £2 16s. per cent., and

that, if that were done, legislation should be instituted to empower the stronger banks to give assistance to the weaker ones. Clause 1 gives effect to that understanding between the Treasury, acting for the Government, and the Association. Under the powers which Clause 1 gives, there should be between the banks which have funds to spare and those who are less fortunate a mutual understanding, and the power to enable one to come to the assistance of the other.

2.15 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: We on this side of the House do not propose to offer any opposition to this Bill either. I should like to say from these Benches, in the same sort of terms as the right hon. Gentleman used, how much the nation as a whole is indebted to the movement of which the Trustee Savings Bank is the spearhead—that is, the business of small savings, which has gone ahead over the years with such success, and with such advantage to the nation as a whole. I should certainly like to endorse what he has said about the Association itself, and to offer our thanks to all those men and women who are concerned with the management of this very important movement. Indeed, I think it is very remarkable.
I had some figures given me of the last return of the Savings Movement for the week ended 23rd October. We find that, contrary to the trend elsewhere for some time past, new deposits in the Trustee Savings Banks were very well ahead of the withdrawals during that period. That, of course, is all to the good. It is quite clear that with an organisation—if I may use that word—of this kind, administrative changes have, from time to time, to be brought about, and from the very nature of the case they must come before this House. Therefore, it would be tedious and unnecessary, I agree, for the right hon. Gentleman, at this stage, to go through any of the Clauses of the Bill, because we are only asked to accept, in principle, the fact that the time has come for administrative changes, and that this is the way in which the Government propose that they should be carried out.
The right hon. Gentleman said that Clause 1 was the important one, but I would like to tell him that, when the


time comes, I shall probably have some questions to ask him about Clause 3, because that Clause is the one in which the Treasury may, by order, say in future that there will be no limit to the amount which may be invested by any individual. I hope I have not got it wrong; I think that is what it is. I also hope that, at some stage early in our proceedings, the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what sort of figure the Treasury has in mind to set by order, because I see the danger that, if they set too high a figure, it may alter the whole character of the Trustee Savings Banks.
At the present moment, the investor is limited, I believe, on the investment side, as to the amount he can invest. In order to make the whole system one of small savings, a comparatively low figure has been kept, but in this, compared with deposits in the joint stocks banks, a comparatively high rate of deposit is allowed. If the figure is raised unduly high it will obviously tend to attract depositors of a different character from those who now use the trustee savings banks. I do not mean that that is the Government's intention but it is better that the point should be stated. We should not alter the character of these banks, which are one of the channels for the small saver. There are other channels for the larger savings—if there are any larger savings in these days. The trustee savings bank movement was not intended for that purpose, any more than was the Post Office Savings Bank. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to elaborate a little upon the intentions of Clause 3. when we discussed it at a later stage.
The Trustee Savings Banks are a very valuable part of our national life. I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman on that point. I am sure that this is the view of all hon. Members in this House. The only sad thing is that in recent months we have seen a considerable drop in the savings of both small and large savers alike. Many of us on this side of the House believe that that drop is due to the policy of the Government themselves. The capital levy in its present form covers a comparatively small number of people, but the adoption of the principle by the Government has

shaken many of those who are most active in the savings movement. That is the case also with regard to the Government's general policy of compensation under the nationalisation Acts. People who had small savings invested in industry and not in the small savings movement—there were plenty of them—found that the compensation terms were nothing but legalised robbery and they have had their faith shaken in the value of savings.
I hope that when the Government produce nationalisation Measures in the future they will bear that aspect of the matter in mind. As Lord Catto said the other day, we cannot expect people to be both taxed up to the hilt and to save. We have to make a choice which we want to do. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is always optimistic that people will do both, but it does not work out that way. The general trend of small savings recently has been one that none of us have been pleased to see.
The Bill is adequate for its purpose, but on the general question of savings many of us are very worried at what has been going on. As there was a Debate on the Adjournment the night before last on this matter, when many figures were quoted, I do not want to say anything more about it, except that as that Debate took place late at night after a very important discussion of other matters, practically no reports appeared in the Press, not unnaturally. Therefore, I do not know whether it would be open to the right hon. Gentleman to repeat what he then said so clearly, which was that the Government entirely repudiate as improper the remarks made by Mr. Gibson of the Bank of England. The remarks are on record in HANSARD so I prefer not to repeat them; I would only call attention to what he did.
Perhaps there is more opportunity today for greater publicity for the right hon. Gentleman than he had on Wednesday if he will say once more, as I am sure he is prepared to do, that those statements were contrary to Government policy and should not have been made. He will then have done some little thing to stop the mischief that was caused. I have no further comment to make now but will recommend my hon. Friends to let the Bill go.

2.25 p.m.

Mr. Howard: Before and during the war I was associated with and interested in a variety of organisations concerned with the promotion of thrift. I want to join with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and with my right hon. and gallant Friend in saying that none of those organisations for the promotion of thrift has a prouder record Man the Trustee Savings Banks. When we are considering legislation dealing with their future we should be very careful to remember as my right hon. and gallant Friend has stressed, that they were designed primarily for the small saver—the wage earner and the lower scale of salary earner.
I will not, of course, discuss the details of the Bill today, but my fear is that a tendency may arise to lose sight of that purpose and of the people for whom those banks exist, and to consider too much the administrative convenience of those who are responsible for guiding their affairs. If we are to have these banks efficiently and cheaply operated we must have the most convenient administrative methods but I am sure the whole House would say it would be a retrograde step if, with a view to making it easier to conduct the affairs of those institutions, the individual depositors and small savers were to lose anything. The first point about these banks is that they should be safe. It is tragic that one should even have to raise these points, when we think of the honourable record of the banks, but in view of what was said by the Financial Secretary himself, and by the then Chancellor of the Ex-cheque in April last year it is important that a statement should be made by the Government on this point.
The second point is that the banks should be an example to the individual small saver. One of the objects of promoting thrift is to make the individual more self-reliant and give him a higher sense of personal responsibility. If the banks are to set an example to the individual they must retain and improve their sense of individual responsibility. Each one of them must stand firm on its own feet. There is danger lest the tendency to promote mutual assistance among these banks may bring about a position where they are less solely de-

pendent on their own resources. That is a danger against which we should guard.
Perhaps I may return to this question of the safety and security of these savings banks. The reason why I ask a spokesman of the Government to make a statement on the matter is on account of what the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech in April last. He mentioned a Resolution which he was to propose and which he then referred to as
a small technical point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 57.]
Unversed as I then was in the "in-trickeries" of Daltonian dialectic I took those words at their face value. Consequently I was surprised, to put it mildly, when, two days later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained the full purposes of the Resolution that he was proposing and the true implications of what he had termed "a small technical point." After explaining that the interest on the deposits was to remain at 2½ per cent. at which it had stood for a long time and that the Government had no intention of altering it, he went on:
The consequence, however, might be—although it is not yet the case—that a deficiency would arise on the Savings Bank accounts. As the rates of interest on Government securities in general have been brought down, it might be that when we take account also of expenses management, in a year or two's time, if the cheap money policy progresses well there would be a slight deficiency on these accounts. For this reason we desire to institute a change of practice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 467.]
To my mind the possibility of deficiency arising in the accounts of these banks, which have to look after the savings of over four million of our people, was something more than a "small technical point." Frankly, I was worried, and consequently, when the Committee stage came on the following week, I again raised the question. The Financial Secretary, who replied, was absolutely specific that the reason for that Resolution was that a deficiency might arise as a result of the cheap money policy which the Government were then enforcing. I will quote his words because then I think he will see the importance of making a statement now:
This Resolution… is to provide for meeting a possible deficit that might arise in the finances of the savings banks… The deficiency has not yet occurred"—


He was speaking in April, 1947—
and we are not certain yet that it will, but it does appear to us likely that one will occur next year or the year after, in both of these great institutions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1947, Vol. 436, c. 909.]
That was said just over 18 months ago and I want to know, is it still likely that a deficiency will occur? Has one occurred already? If it is not still likely, is it not conceivable that there ought to be some other inclusions in this Bill to deal with what I imagine is a changed position as a result of a changed financial policy adopted by the Government?
That is my first point and it is of great importance to the future prosperity of these banks, which have such a proud record, that their present position should be made perfectly clear and that it should also be made perfectly clear that if there is any doubt as to their present security, it is the direct and admitted consequence of Government financial policy and in no way the result of any defects of management on the part of those responsible.
The second point is the question of preserving the individual independence of each one of the banks. That is of the greatest importance. All of us can see the value of them giving mutual assistance to each other, but why should one of these banks give a grant of money, which has come to them from the individual savers, to promote the development of another independent institution which is only acting in rivalry with them? Friendly rivalry I admit, but why should the surplus resulting in one extremely well-managed and efficient bank be diverted to encouraging a development in another bank which may not have equal resources? The Financial Secretary in his statement this afternoon used these words:
It might be that some of them have launched out more than some people thought they were justified in doing.
I think he will recollect those words, but he will see them in HANSARD.
That is the point. Have they launched out more than they were justified in doing? If they have, then this provision, which appears to be something designed to enable them to do something which is good, is in fact something being done now to recover damage they have suffered from doing something which was

unwise. I hope that is not the case, but again the words of the Bill and the words of the Financial Secretary create doubt, and the one thing we must remove if we are to have a successful Savings Movement and successful institutions is any question of doubt.
The great danger to my mind is that the Bill seems to remove individual responsibility from the individual banks and to give greater and wider discretion to the Commissioners for the Recovery of National Debt. No one doubts the integrity of the Commissioners for National Debt but their primary duty is to have regard to the National finances. It is not their primary duty to consider the immediate interest of the individual saver. There may well be a conflict of interest arising in their minds as to what they should approve or should not approve for an individual bank, and there is no doubt that if such a conflict arises it will be their primary duty to do that which is desirable for the general support of National financial policy rather than that which is in the immediate, direct interests of the individual saver. On this point the Financial Secretary, speaking last year, used these words in commending the step which was being taken:
We believe this is the right thing to do. It will reassure the small saver that he can absolutely rely on the maintenance of his interest at 2½ per cent."—
Well and good
and that there will be covering authority for investment of the funds in furtherance of the Government's policy.—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 22nd April, 1947; Vol. 436. c. 969–970.]
I am suggesting that these funds should be invested not primarily in furtherance of Government policy but primarily in the interest of the security of the individual investor. In spite of the good intentions, which I do not doubt for one moment, of the promoters of this Bill, you Mr. Speaker, and hon. Members on all sides of the House will remember the name of the place that Dr. Johnson said was paved with good intentions, and it is not my desire or, I believe, the desire of the Government, to see the Trustee Savings Banks go to that place. The intentions are right but I hope that before we agree to give this Bill a Second Reading we shall have a perfectly clear statement as to the present financial position of these banks, and an assurance that any tendency to limit


the individual independence of the banks will be resisted so far as is practical and possible.

2.38 p.m.

Mr. Burden: I do not propose to follow the points made by the hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Howard) except to say that he seems to have dissembled his love for the Trustee Savings Bank very well this afternoon. In regard to the points made by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank) on the "Once for all" contribution, and compensation under nationalised industries, while extremely interesting, if they were discussed at length would take us too far this afternoon. I believe there is a quite adequate reply to the points made by the right hon. and gallant Member and at an appropriate time and place that reply will be made.
On behalf of those interested in the trustee savings banks movement I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this Bill forward and also for the tribute paid not only to the Savings Banks movement but also to the Trustee Savings Banks Association which is doing so much to guide and inspire the work of the trustee savings banks. Today there are about 86 trustee savings banks. They have about £600 million deposited and 4,500,000 depositors. Trustee savings banks, as the Financial Secretary has said, have their roots deep in our national life. Like so many of our great movements, they sprang out of perhaps the darkest period of our national life, in the time of the Industrial Revolution, from 1760 onwards, a time when the working classes of this country were forced down to levels of poverty and misery compared with which the lot of the negro slave was humane, the days when, as one historian said, it was not tens, nor hundreds but thousands per cent. which made the fortunes of Lancashire. Like the friendly society movement, the Co-operative movement and the trade union movement, the trustee savings banks movement has come out of that very grim time and today we see it firmly rooted.
I agree with the hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster that we do not want to put this movement into a straitjacket. We must give it freedom to

develop along its own lines and in its own way, but at the same time, in view of its particular and close relations to the State, it ought to operate in the general framework set by this House. While there is a very strong case for the independent bank pursuing its own course, we must remember that in the savings banks themselves, as in other walks of life, there is a movement towards amalgamation and the weak going with the strong, or the strong going with the weak, and we ought to foster that movement.
The committee which considered the problem of municipal banking in 1926—and at one time there was thought to be competition between those two forms of banking—made the following comment in regard to trustee savings banks:
The financial basis of Trustee Savings Banks is so sound and they are so firmly established and have in the course of their long history come to inspire such great confidence and, indeed, affection, in the minds of many depositors, that we think it desirable that their activities should be more widely extended and their facilities better advertised and their popularity made even greater than at present.
Those words of 20 years ago are equally true today.
A small all-party committee of this House has looked at this Bill Clause by Clause. While there may be one or two minor Committee points which will be dealt with in due course, broadly speaking the all-party committee accepts the principles of the Bill. We welcome it and believe it will further extend the sphere of usefulness of the trustee savings banks movement and help forward the ideals of the movement. On behalf of those with whom I am associated I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for the Bill.

2.46 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I agree with the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) in most of what he has said except for the nonsensical comparisons between the British working class of the past and negro slaves. I welcome the Bill without the qualifications stated by the hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Howard). It seems to me that if this desirable movement is to continue to fulfil its purpose, it must be able to expand by opening new branches. The


opening of new branches and starting new deposits is an expensive matter. It takes something like six years to build up a new branch into a flourishing concern.
I think it is not unreasonable that the movement should be regarded as an integral whole and that the weaker members, or beginners, in it should get some help from well established branches. I welcome the Bill for those reasons. I do so because Liberals in the past had a very considerable part to play in the building up of this movement, and I welcome anything that is done to strengthen it now.
Lord Beveridge, in his Report on Social Insurance, pointed out that personal savings was one of the essential pillars upon which our standard of living was to be raised in future. Mr. Neville Chamberlain some years ago referred to the National Savings Committee, the Post Office and trustee savings banks as the great trinity of thrift. Lest anyone should think that the Post Office Savings Bank is in any way ousting the trustee savings banks in this vital work, it would be interesting to draw attention to the figures for the period 1st April to 28th September, 1947. During that time the Post Office Savings Bank registered a net dis-saving of £6,600,000 and trustee savings banks a net saving of £9,750,000 so that during that year at least the trustee savings banks made a far bigger contribution to the thrift movement in this country than the Post Office Savings Bank was able to do. I welcome this Bill as a continuation of the old Liberal principle of retrenchment in public and private expenditure.

2.49 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: In adding my welcome to those already given this Bill, I am speaking on behalf of many hon. Members on all sides of the House who for some years have watched with a benevolent eye the activities of the trustee savings bank movement. We have kept in close touch with those who have worked out this Bill with the Treasury and we welcome its main principles. It would be interesting to follow up the points made today, but time is passing and we must confine ourselves to the essential points. It is true that Mr. Neville Chamberlain called these three parts of the Savings Movement a

trinity, but I would point out that the third part of the trinity, the trustee savings bank movement, the oldest, since its birth was more or less at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, has continued to live and develop in all those years since then and has projected itself into the new order which has come into being this century, while many other movements, like that for freeing the slaves, achieved their objective and passed out of the historical scene.
The Co-operative movement, the trustee savings bank movement and the very beginnings of the political party which now governs this country have been associated with the self-reliance of our people, despite the lack of education of the majority of them, and with the inborn British character which developed in the industrial areas from the time of the Industrial Revolution, and they still go on, in this post-war period, and will continue, whatever Government may run this country, to play a prominent part in this change over, when we are losing an old social and economic order and moving into a new one.
Further, it is not something which has been imposed from above in a totalitarian way, but something which has grown up and been based on the voluntary effort and public spirit of the people throughout the country. The amazing thing to us, who want the stability of our country to be maintained in these years of change and stress, is that, in all this period the Trustee Savings Bank movement has shown a continual increase in savings and now forms one of the most necessary social services for our people throughout the country.
There has been some argument, and no doubt there will be more, about Clause 1, where it is provided that the elder brethren will come to the help of the younger and weaker. We shall probably discuss this matter in Committee, and I believe that it will emerge that the people of the North Country, who gave birth to this movement, will come to the rescue of the people in the Southern part of the country. I believe we shall find that, in order to maintain the stability of this movement and give it that support which it bestows on the Government of the day, the Scotsmen, Yorkshiremen and Lancashire men will have to come to the rescue of the move-


ment and give it a fiat from this House by means of an Act of Parliament.
I should like to join my voice to the sentiments expressed by the two right hon. Gentlemen who opened this Debate in paying tribute to Sir Kenneth Stewart and the other voluntary workers for this movement. One of the outstanding announcements in the New Year Honours List at the beginning of this year was the award of a knighthood to Sir James Fiddes, a man who has spent his lifetime in building up this movement at the very centre, in Glasgow, and who has convinced us on the Parliamentary Committee that he looks upon the job which he has been doing as something similar to that of the family lawyer. In the trustee savings bank, we have a movement which has become part of the social fabric of the district, and which is not just a question of handing a book over a counter, but is something very very much more intimate than that. That is probably the strongest part of their claim to be a real part of the social services of this country now moving into the new order which is springing, not from the wishes of the Government, but from the wishes and feelings of the people themselves.

2.55 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: Nothing gives me more pleasure in this House than to listen to followers of Karl Marx on the value of capitalism and savings. This is one of the occasions on which we have had three speeches from devoted Socialists expounding the value of capital in its various forms.

Mr. Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman say on what authority he associates Karl Marx with Socialists, and with myself, at any rate?

Mr. Williams: I understood that Karl Marx wrote one of the leading books on Socialism.

Mr. Burden: May I continue the hon. Member's education by telling him that Karl Marx never mentioned Socialism in his great book?

Mr. Williams: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should make a call upon Transport House, but, if I develop this theme any further, the hon. Gentleman will probably put his foot in it and get into trouble with Transport House. However, that is one thing which we have

had today, and I rejoice in it. We have had the Socialist Party supporting the savings movement. I firmly believe and I think that even Socialists in their saner moments also believe, that the savings movement is of immense value to the country. Support for it has been expressed on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), who represents the larger, saner and more progressive element of the Liberal Party, also spoke in support of it, but it was noticeable that the benches of the Liberal Party have been absolutely vacant and their occupants have taken no interest in this Debate.
In a perfectly friendly way I want to take up one point made by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill, who paid a very welcome tribute to the various savings banks, in regard to the naval savings banks which are affected by Clause 14. I think he will agree that these banks have done most excellent work, but they are to disappear under this Bill. I think that that is a situation on which some of my hon. Friends might have something to say in the Committee stage. So far as the main policy of the Bill is concerned, and the idea of the stronger banks helping their weaker brethren, I think that it is an excellent thing which would assist the whole balance of the savings movement in the country, but I should like to add that there seems to me to be a very real danger that we might have this movement organised in units that are too big, and, if so, we might lose that most valuable part of the Savings Movement in the past—the personal contact.
That is a warning which I think should be given today and I would add another warning to the Government in support of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Howard). We all want to keep this movement absolutely outside party politics, but, if we get Ministers going round the country saying foolish things, such as that they want these savings for the furtherance of Government policy, they are going to create trouble in that respect. One of the things that distressed me most last year was the feeling that the savings of ordinary people were being used, as they thought wrongly, in the


furtherance of Government policy. The Government have had a very peaceful Debate on this matter, though I do not know what would have happened if certain of my hon. Friends had been here.
Certainly, one of the main reasons why the Savings Movement is not as prosperous as it should be is the attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and those under him. If they really mean what they say in supporting the Bill, the best thing that they can do is to remove the grave distress which unfortunately they themselves have raised in the minds of the people through declarations that the Government are using these savings to further Government policy. I do not want to be controversial in this respect. [Laughter.] I could if I wanted to, but I do not desire to be controversial this afternoon. We honestly want this subject of national savings to be above party politics, but there is danger of a departure from that desirable end through Government declarations in the past.

3.0 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If I might by leave of the House, I should like to make one or two observations on points that have been raised and answer questions that have been put. First I will take what was said by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). He said that it was desirable that those using these banks should know how the Government were using the money. It goes to the National Debt Commissioners and they have to invest it in accordance with rules and regulations, and indeed, in some cases, with Acts of Parliament which are on the Statute Book. Therefore, it is not a question of the Government using the money in any shape or form. In one sense it is true that all moneys that are invested in Government stocks can be said to be used in furtherance of Government policy, for that policy must inevitably react on the price of the stocks. I am sure the House, which is in amiable mood this afternoon, would not desire me to go into those matters. We are dealing with a particular Bill which on the face of it is quite plain and up to now the discussion has been on a very high level. We all seem a very happy family and in full agreement that this Bill is necessary and that all its Clauses should be agreed to.
The naval savings banks were set up under a Statute passed in 1866 to help

sailors to save when conditions were different from what they are now. It was obvious for some years that these banks no longer fulfilled the purpose for which they were intended, and it was decided in agreement with the Admiralty that a time had come for these banks to come to an end. I am informed that the last live account was closed in 1946, and what we are doing in this Bill is to wind it up and to hand the surplus over to the Greenwich Hospital, where it will be used in the best possible way, as the House well knows.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) asked me if I could repeat the assurance I gave the other evening as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the conditions under which people can deposit money in the Post Office Savings Bank. I can with the utmost pleasure give the House and the public at large a categorical assurance that there is no intention on the part of His Majesty's Government of departing from, or changing in any single fundamental particular, the conditions under which people can now deposit money in the Post Office Savings Bank and withdraw it. The present terms upon which any moneys are deposited and accepted, will continue and there is no intention whatever of changing them.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me whether I would explain the meaning of Clause 3. He hoped that it would not mean that the statutory limit would be abolished altogether. If the House will look at Clause 3 they will see it does not deal with ordinary savings bank accounts. It deals with the money which may be put in the special investments side of savings bank activities. Originally it was thought that when the Savings Bank Act, 1920, was passed, Section 1, which gave power to fix limits of deposits, would also apply to special investment accounts, but I understand more recently the law officers of the Crown raised a doubt as to whether the powers there taken did extend to special investment department deposits. Clause 3 is intended to resolve that doubt.
I understand discussions are now taking place as to whether some change should not be made in the limit, but that is an entirely different matter from raising


it altogether. All we are doing here is to place the ordinary and the special investment departments on an equality in this matter. At the moment, the limit is still £500, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gains-borough knows.
The hon. Member for St. George's, Westminster (Mr. Howard) drew attention to Section 72 of the Finance Act of 1947. We remember the discussions which took place on that very well, or at least most of us do. The hon. Member will be gratified to know that the deficiencies therein provided for, which can if necessary be charged on the Consolidated Fund, have not yet arisen. So far nothing has had to be charged on the Consolidated Fund under the powers which Section 72 gave to the Treasury. I do not want here, and the House would not desire me, to go into the question of the cheap money policy, but it was definitely visualised that if the rates of interest were to remain low—and I for one would like to see them remain low; I think the country at large benefits by a low rate of interest—and the National Debt Commissioners could not find an outlet for their investments at more than 2½ per cent., obviously there would be a deficiency if they in turn had to pay 2½ per cent. under contract to depositors in the savings banks.
It was felt that a deficiency was bound to arise at some time. It has not arisen yet and it may well be that it will not arise. I do not know. As the hon. Member pointed out, interest rates have now risen and are approaching, if they have not touched, 3 per cent.

Mr. Howard: Last year the Financial Secretary said it was likely that a deficiency would arise. Can he go a step further and state that he is now able to say it is not likely to arise?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Obviously I could not prophesy what may happen to money rates in the years ahead but I should like to make this clear—and I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to make it clear by raising the subject: we can assure the public and those who invest their money in these savings banks that they have the Consolidated Fund behind them and that whatever happens to money rates, whether they go up or down, at any rate they can feel quite

certain not only that their money is safe but that the rate of interest at which they have deposited it will be paid.
The same hon. Member mentioned that from something I said it might be assumed that some of these banks were a little improvident in that they have launched out when others thought they should not have done so. If I gave that impression I apologise, because I did not mean to do so. All I meant was that sometimes it has been thought by public spirited individuals in a certain locality that a savings bank in the locality would be a useful thing and a helpful thing for those who lived there. If they had reflected about it they might have said to themselves, "This is a rather risky thing to do." But they have gone on—and I, for one, applaud the fact that they did go on—to say, "This will fulfil a useful function, and, therefore we will open up." But I can tell the House that there is no intention on the part of the Government to try to make local people open up where it is quite obvious that heavy loss would be incurred. At the same time we do encourage banks to open branches in localities where, although the chances of complete success are not present, success presently is likely. We do encourage them to go forward. It is one of the reasons, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman pointed out, for this Bill, that where we have a well-established bank in one locality making a substantial surplus, it should be able to come to the temporary help of another bank which is opening up in a new neighbourhood.
I think I have covered most of the points which have been made. On behalf of the Government I should like to say that I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) and to my hon. Friend the Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) and others who have spoken. I am glad that the Bill has met with the sympathetic response that it has. I agree with what has been said, that the need for this Bill has existed for some time, and I am positive that when we do get it on the Statute Book those who will have to work it will find it of the utmost use to them.

Question, put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — SAVINGS BANKS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84.—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to Trustee Savings Banks and to extend the powers of the Postmaster-General under section two of the Savings Banks Act, 1904, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase resulting from any provision of the said Act of the present Session in the amounts falling to be paid from the Consolidated Fund by virtue of section seventy-two of the Finance Act, 1947."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Committee of Public Accounts nominated—Mr. Assheton, Mr. Benson, Major Bruce, Mr. Cuthbert, Colonel Dower, Mr. Glenvil Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton, Mr. Haworth, Mr. Horace Holmes, Mr. Kirby, Mr. McAdam, Sir John Mellor, Sir Frank Sanderson, Mr. Ernest Thurtle and Mr. Wadsworth.—[Mr. R. Adams.]

Orders of the Day — DEBTS CLEARING OFFICES [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order, No. 84.—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the effect of the expiry of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Treasury in carrying the first-mentioned Act into execution; and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums recovered by the Crown under the said first-mentioned Act in respect of the rights of the Clearing Offices."—[Mr. Wilson.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — BOARD OF TRADE (DUTIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Adams.]

3.17 p.m.

Mr. David Renton: I desire to draw the attention of the House to the administrative problems of the Board of Trade, with particular reference to the overburdening of the senior staff, to the reduction and simplification of controls, and to the important part which the Board of Trade will have to play in the European economic recovery.
Let me make it clear that I have no criticism to make of the senior staff. I believe them to be men of high calibre and great integrity, who do their best to discharge the most formidable tasks. I should also make it clear that, so far as I am concerned, this is not a party matter. It appears to me to be the duty of Parliament to see that the work that either Parliament or the Government place upon the Civil Service is work which the Civil Service can efficiently do. That is a duty whatever party is in power. Perhaps I should put it beyond doubt that the matter which I am raising has nothing whatever to do with certain inquiries which are taking place elsewhere.
As hon. Members will no doubt agree, it is obvious by now that the activities of the Board of Trade cover an immense territory. Even before the war, its functions went far beyond the kind of regulation which the Board was called upon to perform under, for instance, the Companies Act. It went far beyond mere advice. It had, even before the war, reached the stage of including what Lord Keynes called "The purposive direction of industry and trade." Between 1932 and 1939, the Board was made responsible for the administration of our tariffs system resulting from the Ottawa Agreements and the Import Duties Act. It was also made responsible for making decisions in connection with the special Development Areas. The cotton industry was only one of a few industries which placed upon the Board certain specific tasks in which they had not merely to watch but often to take decisions.
During the war, the whole of the trade and industry of the country had to be harnessed to the chariot of war, and the


Board of Trade had to bear most of the brunt of making the harness and seeing that it was fitted and strong enough to bear the strain. This has led to the vast system of controls with which we are all familiar, many of which still remain in spite of the bright little bonfire which the President of the Board of Trade had yesterday. I wish he had made it a bigger one, more worthy of the memory of Mr. Guido Fawkes.
Since the war the Board of Trade has enormously increased its duties, and there has been very little corresponding reduction in its work. We have had a number of Acts of Parliament, of which I need name only perhaps half a dozen to give Members some idea of the immensely increased power which the Board now has. There are the two Acts concerning the cotton industry, the Cotton (Centralised Buying) Act, the Cotton Spinning (Re-Equipment Subsidy) Act. There are the Statistics of Trade Act, which will involve immense work in connection with the census of distribution and production, the Industrial Organisation and Development Act and the voluminous new Companies Act, which will increase rather than reduce the work which the Board was already doing in connection with company law and administration. Then there have been the Development of Inventions Act and the Monopolies and Restrictive Practices (Inquiry and Control) Act. There are others which hon. Members will be able to recollect.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Why does the hon. Member suggest that the Companies Act increases the work of the Board of Trade in any way?

Mr. Renton: I do not want to digress from my main purpose, but as the hon. Member has asked me that question, I would say in a very general way that by making a more detailed set of provisions for the administration of companies in this country, and by placing some further restrictions upon company life. the work of the Board of Trade has been automatically increased. But do not let me digress on this point. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that my main argument——

Mr. Hale: I was only trying to work up a little interest on the other side of the House.

Mr. Renton: I must say that if Mr. Guy Fawkes had wanted to create chaos in this country, rather than blow up Parliament on a Friday afternoon, he might very well have decided to blow up the Board of Trade on any day of the week. In addition to that legislation which I have mentioned, we should note that the Raw Materials Department of the Ministry of Supply has been taken over by the Board of Trade, and that together with the Treasury, the Board of Trade has had a large amount of heavy and detailed work to perform in the negotiations on the Geneva tariff agreements, the Havana Trade Agreement and in connection with other international conferences.
Most of all, to my mind, we should note the fact that this year the major part of the work resulting from the Marshall Plan for economic recovery in Europe has fallen upon the Board of Trade. As the Chancellor told us on Monday, that plan will not succeed unless the flow of trade within Europe itself is increased, and to achieve that increase in trade I presume it will be necessary—the President will correct me if I am wrong—for senior officials of the Board of Trade to meet their opposite numbers in European countries to see how far the obstacles to trade can be removed. That means that a large number of decisions will have to be taken. They will be decisions on matters of detail, but they will have to be taken at a high level.
The present position, therefore, seems to me to be that the Board of Trade still keeps a watchful eye over a great part of industry. It keeps an exceedingly close watch on the whole of our import and export trade, and directly decides the policy for much of that trade. We have been told publicly that the Board receives over one million letters a month, and we know that the Board employs over 14,000 civil servants, 5,000 of whom are in London and the rest in regional offices. We do not hear so much about the senior staff, but inquiry in the usual reference books shows that there is one permanent secretary, two second secretaries, 15 under-secretaries and about three advisers. This, so far as I know, brings to an end the list of officials earning £2,000 a year or over.
In February this year there was appointed an examiner of controls, to


whom the President referred yesterday. Incidentally, yesterday's little bonfire was the result of nine months of his work. It seems to me clear, bearing in mind the vast amount of work there is to be done, that these 19 or 20 men, who bear the principal responsibility, and are paid to do so, must be heavily overworked, and can apply their minds only to matters of first priority. It would not be surprising to find that they have never had time to sit down and think out how to tidy up the jungle which flourishes in its growth around them. The President said yesterday that apart from the controls which he has just relaxed a number of others are to be relaxed. He said he would he making an announcement later, and I should like to know when we may expect the next instalment of relaxed controls?
The right hon. Gentleman said there were 200,000 fewer licences to be issued each year as a result of the abolition of the controls he announced yesterday, and I should like to ask how many licences per annum still remain to be issued under the controls which are left? I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us whether the work of the special examiner of controls, Mr. Merriam, could possibly be speeded up? Is he satisfied that Mr. Merriam has enough help to enable the tempo of his work to be increased? After all, the President is now setting the people free, and the man to whom that honourable task has been delegated must have sufficient help if he is to get it done in reasonably quick time. I should be grateful for an answer to these questions about control.
There is another major matter on which I should welcome the views of the President: with the exception of one Member, I am sure that all those in the House at the moment will share my enthusiasm about the possibility of economic recovery in Europe. But my enthusiasm would flag if I felt that the Board of Trade had so much to do that its responsible senior staff could not be spared for the vitally important tasks which lie ahead, and which I have attempted briefly to describe. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the Board will do the work which will fall upon it in addition to its existing manifold duties as a result of the Marshall Plan?
The first leading article in "The Times" of today dealt with this im-

portant subject in measured and dispassionate terms, and I should have been prepared to rehash that article and make it my own speech. Indeed, I feel almost tempted to quote the whole of it, because it is so material to what I have to say. However, I think I can assume that the President of the Board of Trade has seen it, and that other hon. Members who are interested will give it their attention. Therefore, I will content myself with quoting just the last two sentences of that article in "The Times," which are as follows:
Many controls must no doubt remain, but there is a large and still more complex territory still to be tackled—by the Ministry of Food as well as the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Supply."——
This is the real point—
The reward for the patient work of clearance which lies ahead will be greater efficiency, in Government as well as in industry, and a much larger incentive to evoke the work and enterprise of business men.

3.31 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) for having raised this matter this afternoon, and for giving me the opportunity to remove one or two misconceptions which I think have been floating about on this subject for some time. Like him, I should like to begin by paying a tribute to the very high quality of the senior officials of the Board of Trade. Their quality and their devotion to duty are such that I must count myself extremely fortunate in having at the Board of Trade such men as those to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
He spoke about the strain on the higher administrative staff of the Board of Trade. It is true that, in this House, there have been on one or two occasions quotations made from an address given by my Permanent Secretary to the Institute of Public Administration. I was glad to see that the hon. Gentleman did not base his argument on that particular article, because I know that he, like any other responsible Member of this House, would not wish to make political capital out of what was a valuable contribution to the proceedings of an important institute. In actual fact, that speech ought to have been delivered by myself, but, at that time, I was in Russia on a short visit for the purpose of negotiating a trade agreement, and my Permanent Secretary


deputised for me at short notice, and made what I thought was a profound contribution concerning our administrative problems.
I think it right that I should refer to that address, even though the hon. Gentleman did not dwell on it. In it, my Permanent Secretary talked about the strain on the administrative staff of the Board of Trade as he saw it a year ago. I need not remind the hon. Gentleman that the strain, at that time, was unusually severe, more severe than it is, I think, at the present time, though no one, even now, would wish to regard in any light manner the very heavy strain which my officials are carrying. But if we look back to the time when this address was given—and it has since been the subject of a lot of articles in the Manchester Guardian" and "The Times"—we can see that a very heavy load indeed was placed on high administrative civil servants, especially in all Departments concerned with the balance of payments problem.
It will not be beyond the memory of the hon. Gentleman that, at that time, we had only just been forced to suspend the convertibility of sterling. We were faced with the position where our international trade depended on the negotiation of a large number of bilateral agreements in all parts of the world based on the acceptance of sterling as a method of payment. Therefore, starting off as we were with the negotiation of some 30 or 40 bilateral agreements, it is hardly surprising that the load placed on these officials at the top of the Board of Trade and other Government departments dealing with trade negotiations was extremely heavy.
It is a fact that at the same time the International Trade Conference was in full swing at Havana. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the last to suggest that the bilateral agreements or the International Trade Conference could have been postponed to a later date. They were both highly urgent. It is also a fact that at that time we were engaged on the heaviest part of recasting the import and export programmes which have played no small part in that improvement in our balance-of-payments position to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has drawn attention in recent

speeches in this House. It would have been impossible to recast those programmes without placing a very heavy load upon my higher officials.
Again, we were in the early stages of working out the programmes and the arrangements which were necessary in connection with the American European Recovery Programme. Naturally, that programme was one with which the Board of Trade were very intimately connected, and while much of the load necessarily fell upon officials of the Foreign Office and of the Treasury, the trading part of it certainly fell upon the Board of Trade. That is an essential part of our administrative arrangements. I am sure that the industrial and trading community in this country, who have so close and intimate a connection with the Board of Trade, would have felt it highly desirable that my officials should play a leading part in drawing up the United Kingdom side of those arrangements. Then, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, all the economic questions at that time necessarily exercising the minds of His Majesty's Ministers again required the advice of my officials, not only in a departmental sense but in order to make their fullest impact on the inter-departmental consideration—including Cabinet consideration—of these important questions.
Again, and here I am only taking up a point which the hon. Gentleman has made, there was a fairly heavy burden of legislation on the Board of Trade at that time. I would defy him to suggest any legislation that could have been postponed. The Cinematograph Films Bill was essential and took a lot of our time, because the Act of 1938 was due to come to an end last March. The Monopolies Bill, which was passed by this House and received commendation and support from all parties, was in its final drafting stages. The Cotton Bill, the Bill relating to research, and the Export Guarantees Bill, were all very much in our minds about the time when my permanent Secretary gave his address. Although I do not want to quote the hon. Gentleman in support, I am sure that he will agree that there was not one of those Bills which was not absolutely essential and required to be passed last Session.

Mr. Renton: The President of the Board of Trade is trying to draw me upon


a very wide field. I certainly would not say that some of those Bills could not have been postponed. Indeed, it may very well be that I even voted against one or two of the Bills that he has in mind; so he must not take me as saying that I agree that all those Bills were essential. The main point is that, whether rightly or wrongly, they placed a lot more work on his Department.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has said that he may have voted against some of those Bills. So far as I know, those Bills all had unopposed passages in this House. On one or two aspects of the Monopolies Bill it is possible that the hon. Gentleman did, on Committee or Report stage, get into the wrong Lobby. I am sure that all sections of opinion in this House felt that the Bills were all of some degree of urgency. I agree with him that they all placed a smaller or greater load on the higher administrative officials of the Board of Trade.
It has been suggested that some of the work placed upon the higher officials arose because of Ministers' doctrinaire preoccupation with certain economic theories, but I want to make it clear that every one of those Measures was important and essential for the economic recovery of this country in the particular industry with which it was concerned. Not one of them could be described as in any way a doctrinaire Measure. He referred to the Companies Act, and it is a fact, as he suggested, that about that time we were concerned with having to put through some of the more important regulations that had to be made under the Companies Act which had received the Royal Assent a few months earlier.
In general, I should like to say this to the hon. Member. He will remember from his reading the long arguments which used to take place in this House between various proponents of particular doctrines on the subject of taxation and public expenditure. Later in the century the doctrine was enunciated, I think by Disraeli, that expenditure depends on policy. So it is in the 20th century with staff time and with the strain on the higher administrative officials. If this House wills a particular policy, then that must inevitably place its corresponding strain not only on Ministers but also on the officials who are called upon to

advise upon it. Therefore, if there is anyone in this House who feels that that strain must be lightened, the responsibility rests on him of suggesting the particular departments of policy in which we should change our present approach.
It is common ground, I think, that under any Government under present, post-war conditions, we must have a much closer preoccupation with economic policy, a much closer control of industry than we had before the war. I think the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) made a speech in that connection a few weeks ago, and was taken to task by some of his colleagues for his unaccustomed outburst of frankness. Only this week Front Bench speakers from the other side, in so far as they said anything at all, said just what I am saying now. The right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), in an unusually quiet speech in which he showed more plainly than we have ever seen before the divisions and difficulties which afflict the Tory Front Bench, said this:
Hon. Members opposite often accuse us of wanting to abolish all controls. I know of no responsible Member of my party who ever said such a thing.
Of course he had not heard of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) about setting the people free.
Obviously, in the conditions of the world today, it is impossible to go back to pre-war. It is inevitable that the State should play in our affairs a role much bigger than it used to do. Decisions on the balance of payments, for example, are bound to be taken on a scale wholly inappropriate for any private industry, however large. In times of scarcity, there are occasions on which decisions as to supplies must be taken by the State on information that only the State can possess."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November. 1948; Vol. 457, c. 694 and 695.]
The policy which any Government must follow under present conditions, and which places its corresponding burden on high officials, is due not only to our national balance of payments position and to our position as a result of the war. There was a pretty intensive pre-war development of economic policy which, even if there had been no war, would have led to a greater and greater strain on Ministers and officials. One side of this has been mentioned already, the import duties advisory work. Another is the location of industries. I


think the hon. Member used the wrong phrase when he talked about pre-war preoccupation with the special development areas. In those days they were designated as special areas, meaning areas that we had to get out of as quickly as possible, and not development areas which, since the war, it has been our policy to develop.
I think it is quite true that what went on in the old depressed areas was something which greatly affronted the national conscience, and it has been a matter of agreement among all parties that in the post-war world we have had to have a much greater responsibility for the location of industries. That, in itself, has placed quite a heavy burden on the higher administrative officials of the Board of Trade and of Departments. What I was not clear about in the hon. Member's speech was that, having diagnosed the difficulties—and I agree with his diagnosis—he has not said what ought to be done to improve the matter.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman challenges me to say what ought to be done. I am not going to presume to tell him how to run his Department—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, there is no obligation on me whatever and it is not worthy of the right hon. Gentleman to try to "pass the buck" in that way. He is responsible for running his Department and he is responsible for seeing that it runs efficiently. He knows, or should know, the inner workings of his Department. We Members of the House of Commons are entitled to inquire for and obtain assurances from him that all is well, and, if all is not well, that he is doing something about it. It is not for us to propose precisely what should be done.

Mr. Wilson: Of course I did not really expect the hon. Member to give me any useful advice on that point. I want to assure him that I am not "passing the buck" in this connection. As he has abstained from telling me what I ought to do, all I can do is to tell him that I have got as far as he had in the diagnosis of what is wrong and, although his speech is very valuable in ventilating the matter and calling attention to it, he has not told us anything new.
Let us see what things can be suggested for putting the matter right. Some say

that we ought to remove controls, and I think that, so far as any positive conclusions arose from the speech of the hon. Member, it was that we had too many controls at present and that if we removed some, the load on higher officials would be that much lighter. As the hon. Member knows, yesterday we removed a considerable number of controls. Here again we have had to do it entirely on our own, without any help from those who for the last three years have been demanding the removal of controls. While I am still awaiting, and most anxiously awaiting, a report of the committee which was appointed by the Conservative Central Office in 1946, which was to publish a list of the controls which we ought to remove and has so far not published anything, we have been getting on with the job and yesterday we removed a very large number of controls. In this connection, I wish to add my tribute and thanks to my Examiner of Controls. He is a well known sportsman and was a rugger blue at the college which the hon. Member himself adorned a little time ago and was also an international. He has torn through some of the controls like a conventional loose forward.
De-control takes even more time and even more attention on the part of higher officials than the maintenance of controls. That is not an argument for keeping controls on unnecessarily. As a matter of fact I am only too anxious to remove them, but when we are concerned with the removal of a control, often against the advice and wishes of the trade association concerned, and often involving the removal of protection and safeguards from certain parts of an industry, it frequently takes more of the time of officials than does the continuation of the control from day to day.
The hon. Member asked a question which I think he was absolutely right to ask and which I will try to answer. He asked if these higher officials had time to think and to get down to the job of clearing up what he described as "the growing jungle of control." It is not growing, but is in fact being cleared away as fast as we can clear it. They have time to think about the big issues of the day; time to think not only about what measures may be necessary departmentally to improve our control system and improve our departmental arrangements,


but, what is even more important, they have time to think and advise on the big economic problems, which are not only of departmental, but of inter-departmental, and very often of international concern.
The hon. Member asked two other questions. One of them was how many licences and permits are to be issued after the removal of the 200,000 Board of Trade licences and the 5,000 or 6,000 others which were as the result of yesterday's little bonfire. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not know the answer to that, and it would take far too many of my staff to find out the answer. I am sure that he would not want to place a burden on my staff for that purpose. He asked me if I was satisfied that Mr. Merriam has all the staff he needs. I think he is satisfied, but the hon. Gentleman asked the question and I am sure he wants a full and a complete answer. Mr. Merriam was not given terms of reference which included price control, into which we are continually making a Departmental examination, or, indeed, the clothes rationing scheme, and I have to report to the House that Mr. Merriam has not felt it possible, during the period in which he has been at the Board of Trade and with the limited resources available, to go into the timber and paper controls. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the need for a further investigation of these two controls is very much in my mind, and I am considering what we can do as a preliminary to streamlining these controls, if it is possible in present conditions to get any simplification. Apart from these two controls, I think Mr. Merriam has had all the staff, the resources and freedom of action necessary for carrying out the job, which I think the House will agree has been a very well-conducted inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman's general point has been the heavy burden placed upon Board of Trade officials. I have said that, in so far as that burden is still excessive, it is the result of policies which this House would wish the Board of Trade to carry out. We are continually examining how far the burdens of high officials, and indeed of Ministers, can be lightened by various types of redeployment of staff and other arrangements, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that most of the critical questions which I have to answer now,

not only in this House but in the correspondence to which he referred, are demands, not for fewer controls, but for more.
It is only a few weeks ago that I received in my postbag a parcel containing two ladies' vests, with a letter pointing out that these vests were bought at such a price and for so many coupons, that they had shrunk, and inquiring what I was going to do about it. My answer to that was:
Dear Madam. The Board of Trade does not make vests.
I do not think that anyone has ever suggested that we should, but so many of the inquiries and comments which I get ask me to improve the quality and interfere here and there to see that the consumer gets proper protection. These are controls which I have not felt ready to undertake, but, probably, it will be some consolation to the hon. Gentleman to know that, not only are we decontrolling wherever we can in accordance with the policy which I outlined yesterday, but we are strenuously resisting demands from the public, and especially from Conservative Members of Parliament for widening the sphere of control.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Would my right hon. Friend allow me to put one point to him before he leaves the subject of correspondence? My experience, which is shared by many hon. Members, is that we find that, when we write letters to a Department, it takes very much longer to obtain a reply from the Board of Trade than from any other Department of State. I wonder whether, in the near future, he could direct his attention to this problem so that not for longer than is necessary will my right hon. Friend enjoy the unenviable distinction of taking longer to deal with the complaints of hon. Members than any other Department.

Mr. Wilson: I cannot accept my hon. and gallant Friend's complaint. I have from time to time very carefully surveyed the average length of time required to answer letters from my colleagues in the House, and I have also checked up against other Departments, and I am certainly not aware of the complaint he is making. Perhaps I might explain that, at present, owing to circumstances of which the House is aware, one of my col-


leagues is absent on leave, and, in view of the very large amount of correspondence which I get from the House, it is not quite so easy to answer letters as quickly as I should like to do. I can assure him that such delays as have occurred are being reduced, but, though there are some unavoidable delays, I hope it will not be more than a day or two before we get through the mass of correspondence.

Mr. Renton: I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman before he sits down would answer the question I put to him as to whether there would be the necessary senior staff available for dealing with the problems of European Economic Recovery.

Mr. Wilson: It is certainly true that the biggest burden falling on the Board of Trade in that connection both in regard to our side of the American programme and the part which this country is playing—and we are playing a very big part—in economic recovery has been in the last few months. We were able to sustain that burden and I have every confidence that with the arrangements and re-arrangements we have made we will play the full part expected of us in the days to come.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: I apologise for not speaking before my right hon. Friend's reply, but I thought some of my hon. Friends wanted to do so first. There are two comments I should like to make, as I had some experience of working inside the Board of Trade during the war and two general comments besides. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) for raising this subject. In passing, I must say I am a little astonished that the Debate on a subject which causes so much concern and is the heart of political controversy up and down the country should be so sparsely attended by those who are always talking about controls and criticising the Board of Trade. In fact, of the whole of the anti-Government forces there are only two Members present, the hon. Member for Huntingdon who raised the matter and one hon. Gentleman who we are delighted to see but who is I believe a Conservative Party whip. It is astonishing that not one other Conservative

Member of Parliament is here for this important Debate in view of their continuous criticism outside the House which they make on controls. The nation is apt to view controversy cynically when it hears all these attacks outside, but inside the House when the subject is debated the Opposition has almost entirely vanished.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon welcomed the relaxation of controls that was announced yesterday by the President. I hope he was not astonished at these relaxations, because it has always been quite clear from hon. Members on this side of the House that there is no particular control which we wish to retain for its own sake. In the period after the war when a great many materials are short and when many of those we have to import have got to be purchased with dollar resources, it is inevitable that we must allocate them very carefully for those articles which the nation needs most.
It is also true that the question of manpower must be watched. We cannot afford to waste it, but as conditions alter and as deficiencies give way to better supplies, I am quite certain that hon. Members on this side of the House will press for the removal of such controls if the Government were hesitating. However. I am certain that in this period of acute shortage it would be criminal folly for the Government not to see that the best use is made of manpower and raw materials. Many of us have an unfortunate remembrance of the period of depression before the war when luxury cinemas and dog racing tracks were built while our cotton industry, on which so much depends, was not being re-equipped and reconstructed. In the worst possible time now after the war we had to make good the capital investment that ought to have taken place before the war.
I ought to remind my right hon. Friend that in the first six months after this Government were returned to power something like 5,000 to 6,000 controls were abandoned. I hardly ever hear that point made, and I think it is only fair that it should be made because it illustrates the correct attitude of mind of the Government to the problem.

It being Four o'Clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

Mr. Skeffington: The hon. Member also referred in his speech only to Members of the administration above the rank of assistant secretary and above.

Mr. Renton: Under-Secretary and above.

Mr. Skeffington: Quite so. I think it is important to realise that even those from the rank of principal upwards actually have very considerable authority and a great deal of influence and, having myself had first-hand experience of watching principal officers in the Board at work, I think it is clear that their share of the responsibility and the effort they make should be recognised. It is of first-class importance. If you bring these principals into the policy-making group you get perhaps a rather better picture of what the Board's real administrative strength is composed.
On a recent Second Reading Debate I made a few remarks about the staff of the Board of Trade and about some other Departments. In the country there is a tendency for members of some political parties opposite—I quite agree that the hon. Member for Huntingdon did not raise this and I do not associated him at all with such remarks—to be continually holding up our public service to contempt. I think that is most nauseating. These public servants are not in a position to defend themselves. There are rare exceptions no doubt but most of our public officers have given great service which, in many instances, would have earned them much better remuneration outside the service of their country. I think the Government and certain hon. Members on this side may not have expressed our admiration for the very great work which civil servants have done.
I think this is especially true in regard to the staff of the Board of Trade. They have a difficult job to do, dealing with the domestic consumer, and the home market, at a time of a shortage of materials and of consumer goods which arises from the circumstances of the war. It has been necessary, for reasons which we all know, to limit goods to the home market in many instances in order to make good the ravages of the war and to win the battle for the balance of pay-

ments. I think on the whole the Board has done this delicate job with very great skill, always with very great courtesy and certainly with very great integrity. I should like to place on record my own personal tribute to the Board this afternoon.

Orders of the Day — GREEK TRADE UNIONISTS (TRIAL)

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Solley: I rise to call the attention of the House to the death sentence passed in Athens on 10 trade unionists, to point out that the House and the Government are morally and politically responsible for this travesty of justice which has taken place, and further to point out that it is up to them to save the lives of these men.
I am sorry that there is not present a representative of the Foreign Office. I gave notice at two o'clock this afternoon that I wished to raise the subject and it appeared probable that an opportunity would arise for this Debate. Since this is a matter of life and death, I make no excuse whatever for raising the subject, whatever the traditions of this House may be. I deemed it my duty to bring this matter to the attention of the Government and the House and, through this House, to the public at large. These trade unionists have been sentenced by courts martial which were set up in June, 1946, under special security decrees. Let it be noted that those decrees came into operation before there was any suspicion whatever of a guerrilla movement, so-called, in Greece. Further, let it be noted that these security measures were precisely the Metaxas Fascist pre-war security measures, if anything made more severe in the eyes of the democratic and ordinary people of Greece.
The crime which these leading trade union democrats of Greece are supposed to have committed is alleged subversive activities. Since the judge described the French anti-Communist leader, Mr. Leon Jouhaux, as a Communist in the guise of a trade unionist, we know full well what so-called subversive activity means on the lips of a Fascist judge. Let it be known—and I speak from personal experience, having visited Greece, and being a practising lawyer—that whenever a political issue is involved in Greek courts today it is impossible for any democrat to obtain justice.
Here is an illustration. In 1946 I was present at the State trial at Patras of a Resistance fighter. Three judges admitted to me and to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Tiffany) that each and every one of them had been functioning as judges throughout the occupation and had received salary from their Nazi overlords. Those are the judges of Greece. The trial in this case was a disgrace to any conception of justice. The dossier was extraordinarily complicated and lengthy. The précis of it occupied 57 pages. Yet such lawyers as were available for the defence were allowed only to study the details for a few hours five days before the trial, and for two hours on following days. We in this country believe that justice should not only be done but appear to be done. In Greece they have a different conception, under the new Fascist regime. The presiding judge was within a few days of the case a prosecutor at the trial of a former editor of a Communist newspaper. It needs little imagination to realise what sort of partiality one can expect of a prosecuting counsel of that sort, who suddenly finds himself occupying the judicial seat.
Another indication of the absurdity of this legal process is this. Four days of the trial were occupied by four prosecution witnesses, each of them a stooge of the Fascist Government, whereas the defence witnesses, of whom there were 20, were given only three hours in which to present their case. I have received information from an authoritative source that one of the witnesses, a woman aged 28, the mother of three children, collapsed in court on 27th October, moaning, "Do not beat me. I know nothing." That is the sort of justice which we are asked to applaud these days. There were other beatings. One defendant was suffering from tuberculosis. He stated that he had suffered three hemorrhages as a result of the beatings he had had.
It is, therefore, interesting to note that this trial has taken place without any of the usual safeguards of justice as we know it, and the convicted men have no right of appeal whatever. Unless something is done over this week-end it is most likely that these brave, democratic heroes and—yes, and comrades of the

Labour Movement; let hon. Members on this side of the House remember that—our comrades in the Labour Movement will be butchered by judicial process. Hon. Members who have so much regard to the Manius and Petkovs and who talk about judicial murder every time a Fascist meets his well deserved fate, allow these honourable, democratic men to go to their death without raising any objection—except those few hon. Members who are here now who are straightforward and honourable enough to come to these men's defence.
I know what the objections of the Government will be—such objections as, "We cannot interfere with Greek justice." What hypocrisy. What utter nonsense. What a fatuous statement to make to anyone who knows that Greece has been an occupied country for year, occupied since the so-called liberation, first by us, and now jointly by us and America. If we cannot interfere at this stage, goodness knows why we are spending so much money on British troops and military missions and the like in Greece. Then, It will be said, probably, "This is a trial." I have told the House what sort of trial it is. That is the sort of answer we should have expected of the Nazis in 1939 when we pointed out that Germans were butchering Communists and Jews. The Nazi reply would have been, "Ah, it is according to such and such a law of the Nazi regime." So be it, that is the Fascist law; and we do not deserve that sort of answer from a Labour Foreign Secretary.
I will conclude because I hope that some other hon. Members will say a word on this subject. The blood of these men will not be on the executioners in Greece but on those responsible in this country for having put into power the Greek Government. It is within our hands to save these brave Greeks. Let us make representation to the Greek Government. I am confident that such representation would be valuable, and that these great Greek democrats could be saved to continue the work and progress of Socialism in the future.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Piratin: I support the argument presented by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley). A number of hon. Members have tried in this House today to get the Foreign Office


to take some action in this matter. I myself, as early as it was possible this morning, telephoned the Foreign Secretary and also spoke to the Under-Secretary. Both refused to take any action in this matter. I made perfectly clear to them on the telephone that this was a matter of life and death, which they acknowledged, and that these men would be killed in Greece by Monday unless some action was taken. The Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary, I regret to say, both refused to take any action. Some hon. Members and I tried on a point of Order to raise this matter today. Mr. Speaker ruled it out of Order, and, therefore, I think that the hon. Member for Thurrock is to be commended by those who feel that such action should be aired in the House on having been able to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in order to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The House has heard the statement which the hon. Member for Thurrock has made with regard to the legal aspects of the trial which has recently ended in Greece. On Wednesday of this week, an hon. Member asked the Foreign Secretary whether he had an observer at the trial in Greece. As hon. Members will recall, the Foreign Secretary was a bit evasive on the matter as to whether we had or had not an observer. He mentioned that he was expecting a report from the Ambassador. In my conversation this morning—and perhaps the Under-Secretary will not mind my repeating that conversation about which there was no secret—he made it perfectly clear that we did not have an observer at the trial. He said that the Ambassador in Greece would let us have a report through the usual channels. When I asked why we did not have an observer there, he said that there were the usual channels of observation and reporting. I pointed out that in that case we did not need to have the Ambassador's report, because we had already had Press reports which would be very similar to the Ambassador's report, but that we should not have a private observer's report.
The Foreign Secretary has been asked by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) whether he is aware of the fact that an English lawyer who asked the Greek Government for a visa to go

to Greece to observe the trial was refused it. This lawyer, Mr. Simmonds, was asked to represent the Haldane Society. Every Member of this House is aware, I believe of what is the Haldane Society. The Law Officers of the Crown are eminent members of that Society. It is a Socialist organisation of lawyers——

Mr. Solley: Including the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Piratin: This gentleman was not allowed to act as an observer. The Greek Government refused him a visa, and I suggest that one can only reach certain conclusions—that they did not want to have a jurist present who would understand the procedure and be able to report independently upon it. When the Foreign Secretary was informed of this, he took no action, and in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife he said—I quote from a letter which he sent yesterday, and which was delivered today:
As regards the Greek Government's refusal to grant a visa to Mr. Simmonds, you may know that the Greek Embassy here have made public the reason for this refusal. It is that they have good reason to believe that his visit, although nominally sponsored by the Haldane Society, was in fact planned at the instigation of the League for Democracy for Greece…
How the Foreign Secretary can know that is to me a matter of amazement. All that the Foreign Secretary knows is that the Haldane Society appointed this lawyer, and I imagine sponsored him and was prepared to pay his expenses, to go there. Yet, without any evidence—

Mr. Solley: And contrary to the facts.

Mr. Piratin: —the Foreign Secretary makes this statement in order that it can be used as an alibi for the absence of an observer in Greece.
I wish to ask this House, and particularly the Members on these benches, to think seriously about the conduct of a Foreign Secretary who makes no effort whatever either to have an observer present from our Embassy in Greece, or even to intervene with the Greek Government to allow a visa to be given to an independent lawyer to go as an observer, and can then come along and say "We cannot intervene. It is a matter concerning their internal affairs."
With regard to the conduct of the trial, I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said. I wish, however, to make one remark in passing. Every Member in this House knows my politics and views. All of us have come to regard with a great degree of respect the attitude taken in reportage by "The Times" newspaper. I was disgusted this morning to read in "The Times," in its report of this trial, a reference to the two leaders of the Greek Seamen's Union, both of whom lived in this country for some years, who served their country and this country in time of war, and who hold respectively the position of chairman and secretary of their union, as the ringleaders of the Union. No one has ever heard Mr. Deakin referred to—not even the Tories would dare to—as ringleader of the Transport and General Workers' Union. Not even Mr. Arthur Horner has been called the ringleader of the National Union of Mineworkers. These Greek leaders have been ordered to be done to death, but "The Times," kicking them when they are down, now calls them the ringleaders of the union.
I am not making any appeal to the benches opposite—that would be rather a waste of time—but I appeal to Members on the benches on this side of the House. Can we tolerate this line up of a Labour Foreign Minister and "The Times" report in a case of the kind as has been outlined today? I submit that we in this country, and our Government, have a great and moral responsibility in that we have supported and maintained the present Government in Greece. We sent our troops there in December, 1944. We have a responsibility in that we have spent, in the past three years, £150 million in maintaining our Forces there and in assisting Greece in various ways. We retain a military mission and a police mission in that country.
We have a responsibility within the terms of the United Nations Charter to see that justice is done in other countries. We on these benches have the responsibility of taking into consideration the views of the working class, as expressed by the Trades Union Congress at Margate this year, where a resolution was moved to the effect that the restoration of democratic rights in Greece was

urged. Here a blow is being struck against democracy and the democratic rights of the individual. Yes, we have a responsibility but so far the Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary have refused to act.
I hope that as a result of what has been said the Foreign Office, even at this late hour, can be made to intervene. I hope the public will be made aware of what is going on, for on Monday, if these lives are taken, the responsibility will rest on our shoulders as much as on anyone else. Not only have we tolerated this policy all these years, but we are condoning this action now. I hope that what has been said will have its effect, and that the lives of these men will be saved.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Zilliacus: One of the 10 men condemned to death is married to an English girl. Her father came to plead with me a few days ago, to see if there was anything I could do to save his son-in-law's life. He is a good Yorkshireman, and as Yorkshiremen do not believe in showing emotion he was a bit gruff and off-hand, and did not say much. But I knew what he felt like, because I know what I felt like when my daughter's husband was killed in the war. He, at least, was killed for something, for a good cause. But why is this young man to be done to death? His case is no better than that of the others, because he is married to an English girl, but perhaps that fact will help to stir the sympathy and imagination of the Foreign Secretary and hon. Members of this House. After all, the Greeks are just as human as Englishmen: their feelings are the same.
The reason why these men are to be done to death is a political reason. It has nothing to do with justice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) pointed out, those law courts, those judges, were the tools and creatures of Greek Fascism. The present Greek Government is largely composed of those who served the Metaxas Fascist dictatorship and Hitler before we put them back into the positions from which they were driven by the resistance movement. It is that resistance movement—Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Socialists, Communists and trade unionists—which fought on our side during the war. They


are now being terrorised and done to death because the Greek Government are fighting the growing disaffection among the unhappy Greek people, who have been exploited, harried, butchered and vivisected for years, until they can no longer bear it.
It would suffice for one little word to be said by our Foreign Secretary. All he has to do is to raise his little finger, and these men would be amnestied and freed tomorrow. If we chose we could admit them to this country, and let them work for their keep. They are good workers and good trade unionists, and could earn their keep and a bit more. If we do not do it the brand of Cain will be stamped on the Foreign Secretary, and his plea to be recognised as a good trade unionist, who supports the cause of trade unionism, will fall to the ground and be revealed as a hollow mockery. We can withdraw our Police and Military Missions and troops if the Greek Government do not do what we want them to do. If that is not enough we can turn to President Truman, who has just won a magnificent victory on a plea for peace and social justice, to which the American people responded. The present Greek Government was made in the American Embassy. It lives on American subsidies and intervention. If one word would be sufficient from our Foreign Secretary, one whisper would be sufficient from Washington to stop this bloody murder.
I know the political reason for not interceding, the political reason why the Foreign Secretary has not seen fit to send anyone here to represent the Government. It is because they wish to support the Fascists in their campaign of terror as part of the glorious fight for democracy against Communism on which the Foreign Secretary has set his heart. But that fight is in any case already lost in Greece, as it has already been lost in China. The offensive has been a failure. It broke down, among other reasons—as our Military Mission in Greece well knows and has reported—because many units of the Greek army simply refused to fight. When a Government reaches that stage, it is just about ready to disappear from the scene of action.
If these men are done to death, the cause of this Fascist Government is not going to survive, even by the use of that ignoble and bloody means; it is already a lost cause, and these men will have

died for nothing. I beg the Government, which will hear of this Debate—I am glad to see that the Foreign Secretary's Parliamentary Private Secretary is present and that he can give some report of what has happened—to take one little step, to send some instructions to our Ambassador in Athens. If it will send one little word to President Truman to join in that démarche, these men's lives will be saved, and we shall have done something to remove the bitterness and fear of the Greek people, who used to look upon the Labour Government as one which stood for the workers and the common people, but have since learned to their bitter sorrow that however fine a job we are doing at home, and we are doing a fine job, we stand abroad with the Tories and the oppressors of the common people.
What is the sense of pretending hypocritically that we have no responsibility in this matter? When the power is ours, the responsibility is inescapably ours. There is no doubt on earth that we have the power to stop these men being killed, and that if the Government do not choose to use that power, they make themselves as much responsible as their puppets and protégés in Athens for doing to death 10 trade unionists who fought gallantly on our side when the men slaughtering them were actively on the side of Hitler.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Lester Hutchinson: I do not wish to add to the arguments already put forward by my hon. Friends, but I should like to be on record as also protesting against these death sentences. I am not concerned with the legality of the case; I have not read the trial, and I do not know the details. But one thing is perfectly clear, and must be clear to everybody—it is a political persecution. That being so, we in this country, and particularly in this House, have, in the past, had a record for protesting; we have always led the world in demanding individual justice and common decency. It now appears that we are only concerned in protecting people who are condemned in revolutionary countries. When they are condemned in Fascist and reactionary countries, we are apt to take it for granted, and even to support it.
To my mind, it is an utter disgrace that, when 10 men's lives are in the balance because of their views and their


trade union activities, the benches opposite should be completely empty except for the normal representative. Yet they are very concerned about the state of justice in Bulgaria, Roumania and Yugoslavia. I am also surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) is also absent, because he was very concerned about the execution of the late Mr. Petkov and made a great deal of fuss about it. But where is he today, when 10 trade unionists are being done to death? Where, in fact, are all the trade union members of our party today? It is scandalous that there is no representative

of the Foreign Office to listen to our protests. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) that if our Government made representations to the Greek Government, for which we have a moral responsibility, because we forced the election which elected that Government——

The Question having been proposed after Four o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Four o'Clock.